Would you know that the earth was spinning as opposed to the camera moving? Where would this stationary camera be operated from?

If globe photos are CGI, wouldn't it be just as easy to CGI moving footage?

I don't think these things would "prove" something to you. Am i right?

You would know based on the light and dark side of the earth. This could be done. The satellite would just have to be super far away... the satellite would still orbit, just very slowly, slowly enough to see the earth spin a few times.

Geostationary videos are the best. I'm sure I can find one

What a gorgeous video! I had never seen it before.

I'm thinking of it from the standpoint of OP, feeling like those kinds of still photos are fake. Not sure why one that appears to be in motion would be more convincing to that person.

Yeah I get what you're saying!

No stars are visible because if the camera was set to that type of exposure, the earth would be way too bright, the earth would be way over exposed.

Tyson also said that the shape is so minute that the human eye wouldn't be able to see it..

some stars and objects in the sky are intensely bright. they would show up even with the Earth in the picture

They're not nearly as bright as the earth. Some are bright but comparatively not even close.

Go outside and take a properly exposed picture of the moon. See how many stars are visible.

if the camera was set to that type of exposure, the earth would be way too bright, the earth would be way over exposed.

Most people don't know how photography works nowdays. At least there's a snapchat filter to add stars if they don't show up! /s

Is there really?

Nasa, smart enough to fake a earth video, not smart enough to remember stars.

That's for the bug report we will incorporate stars and squished earth into the next videos we make. Can't believe none of us thought of that one. Thanks fellow conspirator.

So NASA can make really convincing CGI earths but forgot the stars?

No, you idiot, you can't see them at that exposure.

wouldn't it be just as easy to CGI moving footage?

not with weather radars and cloud coverage.

Part of the problem is many artistic renderings and composite images are implied to be single photographs when they're not. But, real ones do exist.

If you want a timelapse, you can get a new photo every few hours from DSCOVR since 2015.

For video (although not the whole thing at once), you might be interested in the live stream from ISS though, although you can only see the Earth when it's on the day side.

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/

If you could point out exactly how these are supposedly CGI, I would be interested to hear it.

You don't see stars in this image for the same reason you don't see them during the day... the Earth lit up by sunlight is much brighter. An exposure time long enough to capture the stars would lead to the image being washed out by the Earth's brightness. Try it sometime, take a picture at night with a streetlamp overhead and see if you can get the camera to show both at once clearly.

The "pear shaped" thing is a pedantic comment by Tyson. The actual difference in diameter between the Equator and the N-S pole is like 13 miles on a sphere almost 8,000 miles across. He's technically right, but even his tweet says "slightly"... as far as the human eye can tell, it's spherical.

Here is a great one that shows exactly the effect I am talking about! You have the ISS looking at the night side, and you can see things on Earth as well as the stars. Then the sunrise starts, and the image gets washed out. Starts at 2:11 and lasts for a few seconds as they approach the terminator.

https://youtu.be/FG0fTKAqZ5g?t=2m11s

Why would the solar panel be visible?

Because it's in the frame...? They're huge. Do you want them to be photoshopped out?

and why can't the camera pan around like every security camera ever.

ISS camera panning and another one

and why from 250 miles can we see the cities lights but then from the moon we couldn't see a single light or star

We just had had a whole exchange about camera exposure times, and why any exposure time short enough to catch the dayside of a moon/planet is too short to catch stars or city lights.

You can see the lights from 250 miles up on the night side. I doubt you can see them from 238,900 miles.

the faked city in the middle of the Australian desert...

Care to point out exactly where?

If you're making a fake video to convince people, why would you put a fake city in? C'mon

This is like complaining about a video taken from a plane showing part of the aircraft wing... doesn't make any sense to me that you would have a problem with seeing it. But ok, here are some ISS videos that don't show the solar panels all the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1mPucSk6ic

(yes it's a fisheye lens, inb4 FAKE FAKE FAKE!!11!one!)

https://archive.org/details/ISSVideoResourceEarthViews720p

(this one has a bunch of clips in it, most of them don't have the solar panels in them)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpVTFLvEkeU

(hurricane Matthew and other weather from the space station)

Not surprised you have no response to this. There are plenty of videos with the "camera on the bottom of the craft" that I suppose you were ignoring.

but it is possible to see stars in daylight, dawn and dusk and certain other conditions and places.

I invite you to try to take a picture of the stars during broad daylight that also shows the Earth. It's possible to use a telescope pointed just the right way to observe a star during the day, but you can't just snap a picture of a sunlit scene and expect the stars to show up in it.

Prove otherwise.

DSCOVR

Those are all composites. Look

Everything on the DISCOVR imagery seem to be taken from shots like above. Composited. Unless you have a link to the raw data dumps.

Also the HDEV system is a bad joke. "HD" camera that looks 90s era digital camera. Claims that "signal loss" is because of ISS movement, when they have uplink/downlinks running no problem otherwise.

The URL you are using shows that this image is from VIIR... a completely different satellite in a polar orbit .

Contrast with DSCOVR which is at the L1 point and this can see the entire Earth (well, the half that's facing it) in one image.

So post the raw images.

Here you can find the DSCOVR images updated with new ones every day.

RAW DATA

is given photos of the Earth taken from space

complains that they are lagging behind by one day

There actually exist images that are enhanced from the ones I've just linked you. Here is their webpage explaining the difference:

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/about

When you're using digital cameras, there's no such thing as a non edited photo anyway, not really.

Here, have a film image from Apollo 8 if that makes you feel better.

You do not know what raw data is. You aren't familiar with NASA or how they manage their data. [or pretending not to be].

HDEV is technically raw data - although its terrible quality and is frequently signal cut - out of service.

Pictures often seen like this are raw data. And tend to be complete junk.

This is an example of raw images

And finally, This image by HiRISE taken from Mars of a wide angle space shot [no clear examples exist] - is the best example. As its a raw image. The problem is its only:

small portion of the full image, which is 20,000 x 35,000 pixels or 700 Mega-pixels.

If you can find that full image you can prove NASA releases all their raw data.

They don't though. And those DISCOVR images are not raw. They are processed, edited. Coincidentally the only raw stuff NASA seems to release is either terrible quality or so selective and specific nothing can be deduced from it.

There are apps and databases with more raw data but search forums and its clear most people cannot get the special systems to work, if they work at all.

HDEV is technically raw data - although its terrible quality and is frequently signal cut - out of service.

Do you think this is for nefarious reasons?

Still, here are just two missions full of raw images/data for you:

Juno:

You didn't ask for this one, but here are lots of raw images from Juno of Jupiter!

https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing

This is where we will post raw images. We invite you to download them, do your own image processing, and we encourage you to upload your creations for us to enjoy and share. The types of image processing we’d love to see range from simply cropping an image to highlighting a particular atmospheric feature, as well as adding your own color enhancements, creating collages and adding advanced color reconstruction.

HiRISE:

You can absolutely get all the raw data from this mission that you want! It is all available for free.

https://www.uahirise.org/faq/#Process

Anyone can download and process HiRISE data. You can do this using ISIS software, which is publicly available for free download. See the ISIS Web site for download information, processing instructions, and tutorials.

Kind of amusing that the name is ISIS, actually. But go ahead and download some of their raw data for yourself and check it out!

Juno

Wrong. Just because something is tagged as "raw image" doesn't mean its raw data.

Raw data is here

No reason to pretend to know what you are talking about if you don't know. Unless your intent is to deceive...

Raw images vs. raw data is a distinction you've glossed over in earlier comments too. Do you want untouched images, do you want 1's and 0's, what are you looking for? I've given you multiple missions worth of images at this point, including the live stream from the ISS which you don't like because it's not always on I guess.

Do you think all these images are faked then? How many people are in on doing this? DSCOVR alone would probably be more than a full time job, plus you have to handle how the people who think they're working on a real mission aren't, apparently.

It just quickly becomes a mind bogglingly complicated conspiracy involving many thousands of people and... for what?

And am I to assume you have no issue with the HiRISE raw data then?

No reason to pretend to know what you are talking about if you don't know. Unless your intent is to deceive...

Oh man, are you suggesting I'm a paid shill? I've never been accused of this before.

You work at NASA right? If everything is open book ask for that Jewel Cluster image. Post it for everyone.

No, actually, I work at a university (phd student) though I wouldn't say no to a job with them when I'm done. I think they are in a hiring freeze right now but maybe they won't be when I finish hopefully in 2018.

If you want the full 700 MB image, I'm not sure where I can post it. IMGUR will only take up to 20 MB it seems. It's not like I can email it either.

I have a feeling you wouldn't believe me if I could though. You can download it yourself through the ISIS (man I can't get over the terrible coincidence of that name) software.

Follow up because I'm curious: HiRISE is an instrument for imaging Mars. It is, afterall, on the Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter. Why do you want an image taken from before it even got there?

FYI you can find data from HiRISE in various forms here:

https://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/

As well as here with the right search parameters (although it since they are already in image form here, they might not be 'raw' enough for your taste):

https://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/search/

Or here on their own webpage:

https://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/HiRISE/hirise_images/

If it's stars you're after, how about Hubble? You can search for any of the many, many objects observed:

https://hla.stsci.edu/hlaview.html

For example, here is one %20NGC5457-7&releasedate=-2208988800&daocat=&sexcat=) in the FITS file format; warning it's over 100 MB.

They'll even show you how the images are processed so you can follow along as they work to hide the truth:

http://hubblesite.org/get_involved/hubble_image_processors/

I don't see how they could be any more open about this whole thing.

You cannot cite half-dozen different missions and treat them as the same thing. For instance, SOFIA seems very open - with easy access to what appears to be raw data. So is HDEV [although it cuts out too much and is crap quality]. So is/was the STEREO program.

So in each of these programs people have decent access to data that doesn't appear to have been controlled to a heavy degree. Other programs are not as open. Or they are too narrow in focus when the program costs would merit wider search parameters.

Each produced a number of anomalies by independent researchers. Many sites that catalogued these things have long since disappeared and the only remainders are clickbait -type, not worth linking.

It is independent eyes with various outlooks which spurs novel insights [even if they get it wrong a lot]. At the very least its entertainment.

Hubble is of no interest because its looking at the same thing any observatory is. From nearly the same perspective.

Very interested in that Jewel Box photo. Even if they were in 'cruise' when it was taken - 4 months travel time.

So in each of these programs people have decent access to data that doesn't appear to have been controlled to a heavy degree. Other programs are not as open. Or they are too narrow in focus when the program costs would merit wider search parameters [not to mention the possibility of simply omitting data].

Why would that be? If the Earth is flat and there is a firmament or what have you, surely all this data is fake and they don't need to omit any of it (because they make it all up anyway)?

Very interested in that Jewel Box photo. Even if they were in 'cruise' when it was taken - 4 months travel time.

I'm not interested in scouring their many, many images to find it. I hope you don't take this to mean that I'm a shill or something, I think I've been accomodating in many other ways. That particular image doesn't interest me, and I'm not sure why it interests you. It's "looking at the same thing any observatory is" after all. But if it's important to you, get their software or look through their weird file directories to find it. If it's not there, I would contact them and ask about it. Wouldn't surprise me if calibration images weren't included in the scientific dataset they publish online.

You won't find anywhere where I've stated the Earth is flat. Maybe the universe is flat. Maybe we live in a hypercube. Maybe we in a cosmic egg with multidimensional physics. No idea.

Simply framing a preconceived model in the mind seems to limit intuitive thinking and approaches.

It's "looking at the same thing any observatory is" after all.

The observatory is on Earth. This image was taken with 4 months travel time. Are you aware of an image taken from another planet that shows a wide angle celestial sphere?

Not much point to doing so, I imagine. Puttering around the solar system won't change what the stars look like appreciably, and missions sent to other planets are focused on their targets, naturally. The biggest difference is whether you're in our out of the Earth's atmosphere.

You could try heliocentric missions, stuff like Kepler and Spitzer. Not technically Earth orbiting! Though they are trailing fairly close.

Voyager did a wide angle of the whole solar system but the images were meant to catch planets and not stars.

What you're really looking for are images from the star trackers on spacecraft that they use to orient themselves. But for the most part, I think those images are used onboard and never actually sent back. They're not scientifically interesting, and the star tracker images that do get sent back usually are because they have something else in the frame that makes a cool picture.

http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/snews/2005/0815_hayabusa.shtml

Hayabusa used its star tracker to track an asteroid, there might be better versions of these images elsewhere.

And LISA Pathfinder returned an interesting image on its way out: a picture of the Earth's atmosphere at night and some stars.

http://sci.esa.int/lisa-pathfinder/57009-lisa-pathfinder-star-tracker-image/

You can look through the rest of their data if you want but I don't think there will be many star tracker images:

http://lpf.esac.esa.int/lpfsa/

They're not scientifically interesting

Any image - absolutely any image or data - taken from outside Earth's area in space has some scientific value.

Puttering around the solar system won't change what the stars look like appreciably

It's interesting because this seems like an easy way to support the common model or conception. Take a picture from Earth, its the same as (x) and (y). So why not publish this?

There are a lot of terrible marketing ideas in the space field. Why not do the time-lapse sky picture we see on Earth on Mars - Not interesting? Yet the narrative for DISCOVR is Al Gore had a dream about the Blue Marble - really just comical narratives and marketing.

At least during Apollo they sobered up the rocket-jockeys enough to take family photos . Perhaps they learned from doing the public narrative too well

It's interesting because this seems like an easy way to support the common model or conception. Take a picture from Earth, its the same as (x) and (y). So why not publish this?

Could be considered not worth it given how it's not the purpose of the mission, and the vast majority of people involved feel that the common model is overwhelmingly supported anyway. These images are worse than what good telescopes on Earth or in orbit dedicated to the purpose can capture. Every bit of downlink time spend senting useless star tracker images is time spent not downloading the data the mission is sent to collect.

There are a lot of terrible marketing ideas in the space field.

Agreed!

Why not do the time-lapse sky picture we see on Earth on Mars

To do a proper time lapse of Mars like DSCOVR did for Earth, you would need a spacecraft in a synchronous orbit around it or a lagrane point, somewhere it could observe the whole planet. I don't believe there are any currently.

That said you can get time lapses from the rovers such as this one , and one that Hubble took of Phobos orbiting the planet, and of streaks of what we are pretty sure is water on the surface taken from orbit.

Specifically looking for a wide angled shot with identifiable stars by the way - from outside Earth orbit past the moon or outside another planet preferably.

How about a time lapse of some stars as seen through Saturn's rings by Cassini? They were only incidentally captured in the image; like I've said, the spacecraft isn't there to look at the stars. We have Earth orbiting/ground telescopes that can do that job much better.

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/716/

https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA12788

I don't know what you'd consider "wide angle" or why that's important.

I meant a time lapse like this - could've been done with rover missions. Would have been great marketing material.

We have Earth orbiting/ground telescopes that can do that job much better.

A go-pro can do better than some of the stuff presented from various missions.

No pictures of the milky way from space? Milky Way GoPro

No pictures of the milky way from space?

Ask and ye shall receive. I tried to find something as close to the time lapse you just posted, except taken from orbit.

Seen that before. ISS is 400km out - Earth diameter is ~12,000km. I've looked through a lot of space imagery. Granted maybe not as much as someone in a program but my point is only interested in a very specific picture.

Its a little strange in all the years of space travel it hasn't been done.

I think you've just narrowed down your criteria too much. You didn't like the Saturn time lapse either, why?

The image was taken in visible light with the Cassini spacecraft narrow-angle camera on March 29, 2009.

Looking into the Hayabusa now. It's weird we are spending so much time tracking down various projects and photos that don't really meet the expectation or specifics of the desired image - when the Jewel Box photo matches it perfectly.

Ok, have a few wide angle images with some stars in them from Cassini then:

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/3453/

The image was taken in visible light with the Cassini spacecraft wide-angle camera on Dec. 20, 2006

And:

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5868/

In this rare image taken on July 19, 2013, the wide-angle camera on NASA's Cassini spacecraft has captured Saturn's rings and our planet Earth and its moon in the same frame... The other bright dots nearby are stars.

Still not clear on why the field view matters to you. It would be helpful to have specifics: What number of stars do you want to see? How many degrees field of view? How far away from Earth do you want the image taken from?

I've already pointed you to where you can find that specific image, since you seem so interested in it. If you can't find it, I'm sure the HiRISE team would be happy to point you to it.

https://www.uahirise.org/contact/

I also found a lot of (RAW!1!) images from Curiosity's MASTCAM taken at night, including stars and planets:

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=385&camera=MAST_

Scroll down about halfway. I'm sure the are others to be found on other dates: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/

Here is a cleaned up version of one of them:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lunexit/9699133476

And also, have a picture of Earth+Moon at a great distance from the Messenger spacecraft:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100901.html

I believe the rest of the frame is full of stars, though it wouldn't surprise me if the middle size smudges are optical artifacts instead.

That picture doesn't make sense at all. For one, stars that should be clearly visible are not. 2 - if x2Ori is where it's said to be - in relation nothing seems to line up.

Nucatei should be facing opposite to it, which used as an anchor point only works for 1 group in opposition. Everything else is missing.

Doesn't make sense unless the stars are in different patterns on other planets. Also wouldn't make sense why stars visible from earth are not visible in on Mars.

I assume that this must be the sort of image that you were asking for, because we have now moved on to implying it's doctored/fake instead of saying it's not what you want. That's progress, I think?

Are you suggesting that they make a fake starfield one by one, and misplaced a few, instead of taking a picture of the existing stars and adding in a blotch to represent Jupiter? That would seem rather convoluted, no?

if x2Ori is where it's said to be - in relation nothing seems to line up.

The labeled one I linked isn't from NASA; it's some random person's flickr account. Entirely possible this guy has just mislabeled the image, or you're doing the same. Trying to work out the orientation of where things should be in astrophotography gives me a headache, too. "Dammit Jim, I'm an engineer, not an astronomer!" and all that.

Also wouldn't make sense why stars visible from earth are not visible in on Mars.

Makes sense to me given you have to set your exposure time based on the planet you're looking at instead of the stars in the background. If Jupiter wasn't in the frame they could use a longer exposure and catch more of the stars. The atmosphere on Mars is also often dusty, even though it's thin.

Here, let's look at another night's worth of MASTCAM, this one doesn't seem to have a planet and so there are more stars:

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=387&camera=MAST_

Once again the daytime photos are first, so scroll down.

There seem to be hundreds of these from across the mission on different nights. Are these not exactly what you're looking for?

Im suggesting [the possibility] the star positions are not the same on Earth as they are on Mars.

You are creating straw man arguments here. There are lower magnitude stars visible and higher magnitude stars that are not. It doesn't make sense.

Is there any established research that proves the star positions are the same at Mars, as in Jupiter as in Earth? Besides the assumption they are.

Given "gravitational lensing" one would think this is a question that should've been verified with copious effort.

They would be slightly different, but not to human perception I think. Alpha Centauri is 4.whatever light years away, Mars is like 400M km, something like 0.004% of the way there. Like taking a step to one side in New Jersey and expecting your view of the Manhattan skyline to change.

If the stars were much closer, you could tell the difference. But given we can measure the distance of the stars with parallax, I don't think they're orders of magnitude closer than they are supposed to be.

If on the other hand there is a celestial sphere (I don't believe this) we should maybe expect Voyager 1 to hit it sometime.

You aren't making any sense here. Using calculations is not the same as observable evidence. If the observation doesn't fit the calculation the calculation is wrong.

Go look at the Mars orbiter pic yourself and map the stars. They do not line up. At the very least there are dozens of uncatalogued stars in the image. Which means:

The earlier claim that "star tracking data has no scientific relevance" is false.

If the rovers are analyzing star tracking data 10 times every second , how did Voyager do this without sending data back? Ah it's star tracker only tracked a couple different stars and it the module failed.

But modern craft have back ups.

Two star trackers provide full knowledge of the spacecraft's orientation....As is the case with many components aboard Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, the second star tracker is a backup in case the first one fails.

The star tracker is a very smart camera that takes a digital picture of the stars and then compares the image with those in its own catalog of thousands of stars to identify the stars in the image . Once it does that, it knows exactly where it was pointing when it took the picture, and it sends a message to the computer conveying that information. And, it does that 10 times every second!

There is observational evidence and there is theory and models [simulations]. So far the only observable evidence produced suggests the stars are in different configuration at Mars. Did they design the star trackers to be all inclusive machine operating - without sending data back - on purpose?

If the observation doesn't fit the calculation the calculation is wrong.

Or the observation is being made incorrectly... anyone remember the faster than light neutrinos incident?

Ah it's star tracker only tracked a couple different stars and it the module failed.

It sure did! The investigation reading was interesting. I'm currently trying to debug some annoying electrical work and it makes me feel better about myself to know NASA has struggled with similar issues even on flagship missions.

Anyway, the failure only occurred on Voyager 1 and not 2 to my knowledge though.

We can keep info on thousands of stars on spacecraft these days because memory is cheap compared to the 70s, making the process much more reliable.

Are you suggesting star trackers don't work? If the position of stars changes so rapidly, they would all fail because they are based on apparently fixed stars. Yet Voyager 1 had this problem and not Voyager 2 or most future spacecraft. Why?

At the very least there are dozens of uncatalogued stars in the image.

Or, artifacts, which is why the raw images are often cleaned up. You were the one who insisted on images before they've been processed... which is why you might see junk that isn't really there. I think mostly all that flickr user did was add some labels which may well have been wrong; he's just some guy on the internet after all.

So far the only observable evidence produced suggests the stars are in different configuration at Mars.

By what mechanism do you suppose this happens? We have totally independent measurements (parallax being foremost among them) confirming the tremendous distance of the stars from Earth.

You claim the stars and the constellations are in the same relative position to each other correct? Prove it. It's an easily falsifiable claim.

Show a picture from Mars [or anywhere as far or further] with 2 or more constellations in it and the stars in the position they should be.

I've shown you the MASTCAM images where they seem to take a dozen pictures every few sols... look at a few more nights of them if you aren't satisfied. I am getting tired of doing your homework for you and linking to data from what must be twenty different missions at this point.

I would love to hear a proposal for how the stars change position between Earth and Mars, while staying consistent with parallax measurements of their distance.

And you haven't answered my other question: why would this cause the star tracker on Voyager 1 (which failed because something on it broke and not because the stars were wrong, according to what you linked me) and not others? Why are most interplanetary spacecraft able to orient themselves just fine using the same principles?

If star trackers don't work (and they can't work if the stars are mysteriously rearranging themselves), how many people are involved in the conspiracy to hide this fact? Is it Big Star Tracker trying to maintain their profits?

No one claimed the stars aren't there. If they are in another position the trackers would work fine but they would need a more robust system with lots of computing power. Kinda like what exists on the Mars systems which analyze them 10x / second.

Would be a pretty good mapping system too if they are in different configurations. But then you claim none of that data is sent back so...

Never asked you to do homework. You made a claim you should provide proof for the claim. It should be easy to find a stellar image with each star location mapped in the open space program you claim to be a part of.

This is no different than mapping the local back woods [which if someone asked for the map there'd be no problem giving it] or taking a picture of the night sky and listing the stars.

I already spent enough time on the picture you linked. Chi2 [x2] Ori is directly opposite the Nucatai - the only triangular formation across from Chi2 on the picture you posted seems to be the one highlighted as Nucatai - seen here

If it is there is no other relation to stars in the picture though. I named what appears to be stars in the general area but it doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem to work.

There's no star map done from Mars or further that can be simply overlaid on an Earth-Sky-Map? Really?

No one claimed the stars aren't there.

I didn't say you did. But you did say:

So far the only observable evidence produced suggests the stars are in different configuration at Mars.

I'm asking: what is your hypothesis for why this is?

open space program you claim to be a part of.

You keep hinting at a conspiracy here but I want you to come out and say it. We are in /r/conspiracy after all.

If they are in another position the trackers would work fine

No? If they're assuming the stars are a certain way and they're not, they'll get the wrong results. If you assume the empire state building is in Brooklyn and it's not, you'll end up in the wrong place if you follow it.

If they're actually programmed to account for stars shifting dramatically when you move around the solar system, but its pretended otherwise, how many people are in on the conspiracy to hide this?

There's no star map done from Mars or further that can be simply overlaid on an Earth-Sky-Map? Really?

You can try this with the many, many other MASTCAM images, or the Cassini starfields seen through the rings, or... I've linked you quite a lot to work with here. If you aren't willing to try to map another one of them because:

I already spent enough time on the picture you linked.

That's your choice.

So in short - in the entire history of the space program [besides some Mastcam images which label non-existent stars] no one has taken a sky map and matched up each individual star.

There's a bridge in London for sale.

besides some Mastcam images which label non-existent stars

I've emphasized that was labeling added by some rando on flickr who might have no idea what he's doing.

I recall you asking for RAW DATA earlier... I linked you plenty of raw images from that instrument; try finding the stars on them yourself.

I'm going to keep this post short so as to focus on my main question here:

What is your hypothesis for how the stars shift dramatically from the point of view of Earth to the point of view of Mars or wherever else? How is this consistent with independent measurements of the distance of the stars and the other planets showing there are many orders of magnitude difference between them?

What is your hypothesis for how the stars shift dramatically from the point of view of Earth to the point of view of Mars or wherever else?

You posted a time lapse from heliocentric orbit? The clouds did not move. If moving through space is moving through time perhaps time is different relative to the other position in space. But to the observer it moves the same speed.

In other words an orbit on Mars is 1.9 years from Earths frame of reference - but on Mars it moves at the same speed but Earth relative to it is moving ???? [or perhaps not moving].

Here's a list of mast cam photo times:

2017-07-08 04:31:46 UTC - Day

2017-07-11 0 6:55:39 UTC - Day

2017-07-12 0 9:08:31 UTC - Day

2017-07-13 0 9:37:54 UTC - Day

2017-06-26 0 9:19:04 UTC - Night

2017-06-25 0 5:57:03 UTC - Night

2017-06-25 00:13:38 UTC - Day

2017-06-21 12:49:08 UTC - Day

2017-06-21 0 4:18:52 UTC - Night

2017-06-18 06:21:41 UTC - Night

2017-06-09 11:00:31 UTC - Day

Curious way the the times of capture are structured no?

The clouds did not move.

They do move, and you can see them move if you look closely, just not much on that scale. Weather patterns don't change entirely (I mean on the scale of continents) in only a few hours between images.

moving through space is moving through time

Ok, so in this view Mars and Earth appear to move at different rates depending on which one you're standing on? I suppose if they were orbiting at relativistic speeds you could get some weird time dilation going on. It has to be quite fast before the Lorentz factor really matters though.

time stamps

You will have to enlighten me why these are curious. I had a brief discussion with someone else who claimed there was a bunch of 666 numerology in the solar system, but it doesn't seem like you're going in that direction.

Weather patterns don't change entirely (I mean on the scale of continents) in only a few hours between images.

Careful wording there. They do though. If you watch global radar they move quite a lot in very short timeframes. In fact if you check the ISS data they monitor these changes as well. CATS NASA

Ok, so in this view Mars and Earth appear to move at different rates depending on which one you're standing on? I suppose if they were orbiting at relativistic speeds you could get some weird time dilation going on. It has to be quite fast before the Lorentz factor really matters though.

So there is engineering and there is theoretical physics. Engineering doesn't give a shit about things are "meant to work" or how "they are supposed to work" - engineering only cares about "how do we make this work".

This is extremely important because the people designing systems are not the people in the rooms coming up with the explanation as to why they work. Engineers in general focus on tangible data.

Given that NASA models various missions with Flat models, Heliocentric models, Geocentric models, etc.... - it means that for novel interpretation [aka - only relying on what we know] we do not care about previous explanations [though they may be useful in many aspects] we only care about observational data.

If we look back on previous attempts at explaining observational data and there are gaps in basic explanations [e.g. star mapping Mars celestial sphere] - this raises a lot of questions.

Whether or not you can model observational data in a convoluted manner has no bearing on a simpler interpretation for it to be modelled.

'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.'

You will have to enlighten me why these are curious.

If its 9 am on Mars what time is it on Earth?

I see where your confusion is coming from. Mars' sols are just under 40 minutes longer than Earth days. This is why NASA sometimes tries to have the teams working on Mars rovers live on "Mars time" adjusting their schedule appropriately each day. It's led to some amusing and maybe predictable results: people don't like changing their sleep period constantly .

So let's figure out the effects of this!

2017-06-26 09:19:04 UTC - Night

If Mars and Earth days were the same duration, you would expect any image taken near the same time to be daylight. So at first your confusion with:

2017-07-13 09:37:54 UTC - Day

Is understandable. It's less than 20 minutes later after all. Assuming it wasn't taken right before dawn, you might assume it would still be day. But let's factor in the difference between sols and days.

With each Earth day that passes, Mars is 40 minutes short of having passed a full sol. So 1 Earth day later, on 6-27 09:19:04 UTC, Mars' rotation is now 40 minutes behind Earth. 1 more day later, on 6-28 09:19:04 UTC, Mars' rotation is now 80 minutes behind Earth. That is, Earth has made two full rotations, while Mars is 80 minutes away from completing its second rotation. That means that if a chosen location on Mars and a chosen location on Earth happened to have the sun rise at the same time on 6-26, the same Mars location would see the sun rise 80 minutes later than you would expect on 6-28 using a clock from Earth.

Do this out for another 15 days and you're 17*40=680 minutes or 11 hours and 20 minutes behind. In other words, Earth has just completed it's 17th full rotation at 2017-07-13 09:19:04 UTC, but Mars has only completed 16 full rotations and is 11 hours and 20 minutes away from completing its 17th.

Hope that clears things up!

So you vouch that for all the Mars imagery taken, all will absolutely fit with the theoretical models yes?

Not always. Just one example, the recent discovery of water (well, brine) on the surface didn't fit many people's model of the planet; I for one believed it was totally barren of liquid water (present day) until that was discovered. I was happy to be wrong in that case though!

Glad I could help you understand why the day/night images are the way they are though! Hope the explanation was clear.

Im being very specific here. You either vouch for the times [in relation to the theoretical models or not]. Do you swear your life on the model and the times the picture was taken or not?

It's all based on theory anyway. Who cares...

Yes, the images will match the "theoretical model" of a heliocentric (ok, barycentric, but close enough) solar system with distant stars and so on. If you're talking specifically on the Mars day/night thing, it will match what "Mars time" and the Martian seasons are.

Experiments return one-off incorrect results all the time, the FTL neutrinos thing being just one recent, news-worthy example. This is why a cornerstone of science is repeatability and independent confirmation. Which incidentally is why I'm glad there are multiple space programs and many independent astronomers across the world.

Don't forget that another cornerstone is actually proposing a new hypothesis and testable predictions if you think your observations differ from the stablished model. Would love to see some of those from you!

You are surely asking this as a lead in to claim one of these images has an incorrect or doctored time stamp, thus blowing the lid off a global conspiracy involving millions of people over the years.

So, go ahead and post which one it is.

"Global conspiracy" is such a loaded term. A false dilemma. If there is a simpler method of modelling the universe [or even a more complicated one which shows the current one is inaccurate] it would be easily concealed [or hindered] by controlling the data and access to raw data [even unintentionally]. Which is already apparent.

The data is controlled at the experiment level and at the distribution level.

Was there ever a record of 24 hour period on Mars that was photographed? That would be interesting. The shift work must be terrible because the team operating seems to work very strange hours. One week its 6AM-12PM UTC - next is 6PM-11PM UTC another is 1PM-5PM. So on and so forth. Yet there doesn't seem to be a 24 hr period where record was taken consecutively each hour.

Strange hours the rover team works. Strange if there isn't a 24 consecutive period.

How can you expect people to come up with new hypothesis if they don't have access to all the raw data, or what is "omitted" during experiments?

Logically speaking it does not make sense that there are missing gaps in the recorded data. No 24 hour period on Mars recorded [that can be found] - No star maps from the other planets - etc. (Many more like this) Sometimes the story is told by what's left out of it.

Was there ever a record of 24 hour period on Mars that was photographed? That would be interesting.

Constantly. Here is a two day period (I just picked January 1st-3rd 2013 for no particular reason, try this any other time) during which there are many images from several missions, about half of them from Curiosity I think.

If the link doesn't work (it's an ugly looking link) try https://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/search/ and restrict by Target:Mars and Start Time and Stop Time ranges across the dates you want.

You want to select "sort view" then "add field to sort by-->START_TIME"

I get images from to on 00:53:36 on Jan 1st 2013 22:12:22 on Jan 3rd 2013.

Not all of these are in immediately viewable format (png jpg whatever) so you may need to download and process the raw data yourself.

If you are interested in the other data products (there are more instruments than just imagers) you can go to https://pds.nasa.gov/ and search everything there.

If you find something interesting, be sure to publish on it. No doubt there is still a lot we can learn from the incredible wealth of data that's available!

Strange hours the rover team works.

The idea is to match their schedules to the actual schedule of the rover. I think it only drives during the day, for example, and they want the people controlling that part of the mission to be on duty then.

It's not the best plan in my opinion. I think they would be better served by working in stable shifts. But I can see where they are coming from.

Logically speaking it does not make sense that there are missing gaps in the recorded data.

When you say "gap" you make it sound like a missing piece of footage from a CCTV security system that otherwise records constantly. That would fit something like, when the ISS live stream goes down.

If I take one picture and then another at a later time, that's not a "gap in the recorded data." I've just recorded data at two different times.

Keep in mind that there are many instruments besides just the cameras, and not enough power to run them all at once constantly. When the rover is not taking pictures, it's doing other things. Often that includes returning the result of actions its taken and waiting for a response, since the round trip communications time can be many minutes depending on how far away Mars is at the time.

Curious the pictures most interesting in that database have no previews or browse options.

Yet you can still download and process them yourself. Why do you find this curious? If they were supposed to be hidden, surely they would not be there at all.

Unfortunately, they are raw data (you did ask for it after all), and raw data does not always come in RGB format. Example: hypothetical image is collected using more than three channels, not just RGB. How can you preview 10 channels on a 3 channel screen?

And what makes those images in particular the most interesting to you?

Downloaded but will not process. Also was disappointed this image was in there turns out its not simply a media creation and they really expect people believe they snapped that.

This image was in there

Oh man that's actually really funny. I've usually seen people refer to it as more of a heart shape; the resemblance to Pluto(dog) seems a bit of a stretch.

Anyway. I'm still not sure what your proposed model of the solar system is. I vaguely recall you mentioning geocentrism or something about Earth and Mars moving differently relative to each other depending on which one you're standing on.

I think I've been accommodating in trying to explain my view so far.

Would be interested to hear more about what yours is. Maybe get a chance to ask a few questions of my own!

Without having access to free flowing data [transparent experiments with no question to their legitimacy] its hard to envision a workable model. Ill give you a list of considerations:

This is what the celestial sphere looks like so it should be relevant. Not sure how it can be incorporated but to think we see this at night and in basic experiments suggests to me it must be correlated some way.

Hawking's "Light Cone" is interesting. Toyed with the idea the solar system is on the hyper surface and the Sun and celestial sphere are opposing sides of the cone.

It's interesting to note that "space" could be seen as expanding by temperature. Any experiment will create pressure with heat. Pressure could be defined as the amount of "free space" in the system growing. If so the sun would seem to be creating space and 'space' [2.4K] would be immensely dense. Anywhere you find hot plasma [ionized] clouds would be an increase in space. Meaning 'space' would be like a fractal vortex [think like the atomic force microscope which just keeps bringing up new landscape]. Relative to pressure differentials that limit each system. Really it's the ultimate 'relativity'.

"Space" or its fabric would be envisioned as flat. This image and others like it - where you only see half a planet - it would be on a 2d plane [explains the ecliptic - not sure it can be explained without]. Toyed with the idea mushroom shaped planets curve in on themselves. The backside on the underside of the bright half. But if the Saturn pictures are correct then it kills this [I think] - since the rings appear in 3d space. Notice how it looks like a drain plug though?

Fluid dynamics would explain baryonic orbits. Still hazard to guess there is an electromagnetic interaction.

Some days the sun sets and stars are immediately visible, other days the sky is baron for a very long time until all light is gone. This discrepancy would be able to be calculated if [heat/radiation = increased space] its accurate. [no claims made just visualizing the idea]. Essentially the sun is changing the amount of "space" and the stars would be distorted or perhaps not even behind it [hard to explain - think like a bubble inside a bubble] - the sun is creating more space which envelops the planets its touching [with radiation]

This leads us to the Ozone layer and the plasma problem. 99.9% of the observable universe is plasma. Ignoring so called "dark matter" the missing 97%.

The Ionosphere is ionized gas. Basically plasma. The Ozone-Oxygen cycle cannot work as described when we apply experimental evidence to it. There's no experimental proof Ozone can be created simply from UV light but thats in the model. In fact, Ozone needs either a photocatalytic substrate [Tio2] or it needs an electromagnetic field - electricity - which is exactly why we smell it after lightning storms. Experimental work shows that a UV laser frees Oxygen from Co2. If it also creates o3 it should be present in the same experiment. But chemistry doesn't have many reactions where adding more of the same thing causes a novel reaction. So (based on experimental data) either there is a catalyst substrate in the Karmin Line [a dome - FE'ers would love this] or the Ozone creation is likely directly related to the electromagnetic field - which makes sense because the Karmin Line is right where the Ionosphere begins.

The Ozone-Oxygen paradox leads me to visualize leaning towards an electromagnetic interpretation but that doesn't explain matter. Perhaps just really slow moving plasma going down the Vortex drain. No idea.

Whatever model is used as a fundamental understanding of our environment & space - it should really take into account all of these observations. The plasma reality is one of the hardest to incorporate. Plasma requires electrical input. Period. Planets and Suns have magnetic fields. The universe seems to be a giant dynamo or electric machine. But then we don't see ourselves as plasma - so matter needs to come into the equation.

Maybe the machine makes the matter that we see on our plane of the solar system where the dynamo is spinning and spitting out planets. If the observer were in any other position [another star] the Earth would then be a ball of plasma to them - different time frames [this requires the time-frame point I was making earlier]. Essentially nothing would exist in Earth's time frame except Earth and whatever is on the solar plane.

It's not so much that this isn't being investigated or considered or experimented on - just that its all done in very compartmentalized fashion [in the public sphere] so the public is left to take interpretations of complex math based on modelling based on mathematical models that were used to interpret data. Math is language - ruled by numerical logic. Vocabulary is language - ruled by philosophical logic. Both can be applied incorrectly or convoluted. Observation is needed to support either - which are simply visualizations of the mind.

There are a number of experiments that seem to indicate underlying natures of reality but they're done simply focused on that subject - or at least published with narrow focus.

Very happy simply not knowing but free to consider the possibilities. There must be an easily explainable answer. Occams Razor.

'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.'

[transparent experiments with no question to their legitimacy]

Nothing wrong with questioning everything, but what sort of transparency are you looking for exactly? You can get countless gigabytes of results from numerous missions updated constantly. Surely these experiments are more transparent than the vast majority of papers often published without their dataset in other fields.

Is there any mission whose results you consider legitimate? Not limited to just NASA here: Roscosmos, ESA, ISRO, and so on too.

the Sun and celestial sphere are opposing sides of the cone.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the eclipse will be a great time for you if you can get to the path of totality. The stars should appear even though the Sun will still be overhead. Being opposite cones from a hypersurface doesn't mean they're physically on opposite sides of the earth, but it should still be interesting to check for you right? What is your prediction for what will happen?

It's interesting to note that "space" could be seen as expanding by temperature. Any experiment will create pressure with heat. Pressure could be defined as the amount of "free space" in the system growing.

I'm sure you are aware of the more widely accepted model for this: temperature is proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance. Then pressure is felt from those molecules bouncing off the container with more momentum than they had earlier. In a vacuum temperature doesn't have as much meaning (background radiation and occasional particle aside). If heat is a property of just space and not substance, why is heat carried by molecules (convection, conduction) as well as radiation?

"Space" or its fabric would be envisioned as flat.

But if the Saturn pictures are correct then it kills this [I think]

You can view Saturn yourself easily, so I'd say yes it definitely does kill that. If the pictures weren't correct then millions of backyard astronomers would have noticed. A 100x telescope is cheap and you will be able to make out the rings, though depending on how sharp your eyes are you might have a hard time distinguishing them from the planet. Something like 150x is better.

[explains the ecliptic - not sure it can be explained without]

The planets don't orbit in the ecliptic exactly though. Pluto (which is still a planet in my heart) is the worst offender, but even Earth's own moon orbits somewhat off of it . That's the reason eclipses aren't way more common than they are.

There's no experimental proof Ozone can be created simply from UV light but thats in the model.

You can buy ozone generators that use UV light to produce it from air. Their effectiveness for sterilization is disputed but not, as far as I know, the fact that they produce ozone at all. Plenty of papers exist about this.

Essentially nothing would exist in Earth's time frame except Earth and whatever is on the solar plane.

How far "above" or "below" the plane do you have to go for this to be noticeable? The planets are all different sizes, and there are satellites making a polar orbit that go above and below the Earth. Not to mention the inclinations described earlier, of planets, moons, comets, and so on.

Voyager-1 is at an ecliptic latitude of 34.9 degrees, which at its current distance (about 139 AU from Earth) means it should be over 79 AU "vertically" out of the Earth's plane... yet we still talk to it (with the expected light delay). Is it outside our time frame yet?

what sort of transparency are you looking for exactly?

Actually very mundane stuff. Mostly recorded data that isn't built on theoretical modelling. Already aware they engineer for what works - but when its put into papers or data is presented it almost always cites back other theory, or limits observations a priori.

Are you aware of the "massive pressure event" on Pluto? There was a video floating around from a NASA conference but haven't been able to find it since. Recorded ~1 bar pressure. [Funny NASA doesn't use an SI standard - they listed it in exponential millibars - when it could easily been presented as the truly remarkable find it (supposedly) was.]

Is there any mission whose results you consider legitimate?

Only know what can be tested, or for some experiments they are straight forward enough they do not raise questions. In a defence industry [space was born out of defence - history - NASA had a DoD mandate in its inception] that classifies millions of documents a year, trillions in spending - no, unless there was a widespread transparency/disclosure effort that released ~80 years worth of data.

Being opposite cones from a hypersurface doesn't mean they're physically on opposite sides of the earth

Have you been somewhere on the Earth where night and day are not opposite? Think of the sides of the cone not having any actual "space" next to them. Imagine the cones at a very massive scale, Earth would be where both meet.

As for the ecliptic - you can visualize it like this as well

You can buy ozone generators that use UV light to produce it from air.

All ozone generators use a Pigmented substrate or they simply create ozone by electrical field. Debated this already with someone on here - my position is sound. (Admittedly make mistakes sometimes but fairly confident on this one)

Voyager-1 is at an ecliptic latitude of 34.9 degrees, which at its current distance (about 139 AU from Earth) means it should be over 79 AU "vertically" out of the Earth's plane... yet we still talk to it (with the expected light delay)

Sure you do.

Have you heard of the Fluid Mosaic Model? It's a paper from the 70s. Ask any doctor about it they will know what it is. One of the most cited papers in biology. What paper is cited in Astrophysics for time lag to the planets?

Mostly recorded data that isn't built on theoretical modelling

When we return direct results from sensors on spacecraft, how is that built on theoretical modeling?

no, unless there was a widespread transparency/disclosure effort that released ~80 years worth of data.

Your claim being that the decades worth of data you can search your is... fake? Or only a fraction of the real amount? If they released more, how would you know they released all of it? When would you be satisfied?

Based on the huge volume I've given you already to apparently no effect, I'm worried you will never accept anything as transparency.

night and day

You must still be excited for the eclipse, right? Do you have a prediction for what will happen?

All ozone generators use a Pigmented substrate or they simply create ozone by electrical field.

And they are marketed as working by UV rays instead because...?

Sure you do.

You are implying that no one actually communicates with the Voyagers, that the signals received are fake?

That wouldn't explain the natural satellites though; are polar orbiting satellites far enough out of our plane to be out of our time? What about the Moon, or more dramatically what about Pluto? The other planets don't orbit exactly on the ecliptic either.

What paper is cited in Astrophysics for time lag to the planets?

There have been many independent measurements of the speed of light over the years. You could cite any one of them if you felt the need to. The light delay is just distance/c as you know.

You must still be excited for the eclipse, right? Do you have a prediction for what will happen?

No stars will be visible

You are implying that no one actually communicates with the Voyagers, that the signals received are fake?

Did you design the system used to communicate? A latency program could easily fake the desired results from predictive modelling.

Do you trust the work the Jason Society did on Satellites and GPS systems yet never open the data for independent verification? What about the manufacturers who admitted their relativity programming was off by a factor of 2. All that makes sense?

There have been many independent measurements of the speed of light over the years. You could cite any one of them if you felt the need to. The light delay is just distance/c as you know.

In other words you are in the field of hocus-pocus. There exists no fundamental - primary cited peer or independent reviewed paper, which used distance/c to calculate the distance between the orbiting satellites while they were at various planets.

A supremely basic ability to solidify Einsteins physics and support the model which is claimed to be used for billion dollar programs, and no one though to perform experiments and make their name as the most often cited author in astrophysics.

Not to mention since "gravity bends space" and the inertia of the craft is unchanging, it would not only support relativity but give nobel worthy insight to gravity fields. Since the inertial frame compared to the distance calculation by the return signal would tell you how much space "bent".

And they are marketed as working by UV rays instead because...?

Because people have fallen for the Ozone-Oxygen model.

Corona Discharge:

The technologies involved in corona discharge ozone generation are varied, but all operate fundamentally by passing dried, oxygen-containing gas through an electrical field . The electrical current causes the “split” in the oxygen molecules as described in the section on ultraviolet ozone generation.

Photocatalyst - Titanium Dioxide

A photocatalytic air cleaner uses broad spectrum ultraviolet light, which reacts with a thin-film titanium dioxide-based chemical catalyst, in the presence of water

http://www.air-purifier-power.com/photocatalytic-air-purifier.html

There are only two ways we know how to make Ozone. Either the photocatalytic method [using titanium dioxide] or with a electrical input [plasma generator] - same as lightning.

No plasma no ozone. No substrate no ozone. It's very simple.

And a perfect example where basic experiments falsify unproven theory.

No stars will be visible

Be sure to check for yourself when the time comes. It won't be black like night but you'll be able to see some of the bright stars/planets.

https://www.space.com/36721-stars-planets-visible-during-solar-eclipse.html

https://www.greatamericaneclipse.com/phenomena/

You will be one of millions of people looking. Suppose these people see those objects during the eclipse--how would your model account for that?

A latency program could easily fake the desired results from predictive modelling.

Now we're getting back into the actual conspiracy! This is part of why I don't think you will accept any results I give you; if it contradicts your ideas you will declare that it could be fake.

What would prove to you that the Voyager signals (or those from any other spacecraft) are real? What data could they send back that you wouldn't just handwave away as fake?

Do you trust the work the Jason Society did on Satellites and GPS systems yet never open the data for independent verification?

There exists open source GPS receiver software. You can check how exactly it works and then try it out for yourself.

http://gnss-sdr.org/

In other words you are in the field of hocus-pocus. There exists no fundamental - primary cited peer or independent reviewed paper, which used distance/c to calculate the distance between the orbiting satellites while they were at various planets.

This would would be like picking a specific paper to cite for the density of aluminum. Materials scientists don't do that--there are many materials properties databases. Is that field hocus pocus too? Again, c has been measured many, many times. I'll reiterate one way in a second.

A supremely basic ability to solidify Einsteins physics and support the model which is claimed to be used for billion dollar programs, and no one though to perform experiments and make their name as the most often cited author in astrophysics.

I believe we are headed straight for the notion that all of these missions are faked, right? "Claimed to be used" and all that.

We have already talked about the moonbounce any amateur radio operators can do with reasonably accessible equipment ($thousands, but not $tens of thousands). That is a way to measure the distance to the Moon that is independent of the speed of light.

Doesn't matter whether space is a vacuum or liquid nitrogen or plasma or whatever else you want it to be. If the speed of light changes it might take longer to get where it's going, but still travel the same distance there and back, and in the process cover a certain distance across Earth between its transmitted and reflected/received points. Unless it takes so long that the Earth rotates underneath it, but the moon bounce only takes a couple seconds. Don't take my word for it, ask the countless amateur radio operators who have done it.

So you've measured the distance to the moon, and you also know how long the signal took to get there and back again. Then its easy to find c asy you can imagine. It might be a little off depending on any latencies you have anywhere else processing or whatnot.

Once you know the speed of light in space, you can then use that speed to find the distance to planets that have probes at them, by how long the signals take to reach you.

Unless all the probes are fake, of course.

Here's another idea worth toying with. What if every planet is its own geocentric zone while in it [turned inside out no less like a cell and this is the celestial sphere ] - works concave or convex since moving to another planet would drop you into a new sphere, but after leaving it goes back to a heliocentric [or ...whatever-centric] model.

The fact that star maps do not seem readily available from Mars or outer planets suggest to me the other idea is better. Where time-frames are different and it would explain why stars are not in the right position.

Tech billionaires think we live in a simulation - granted that article may be a psy-op, but if reality is like a simulation [its still reality to us] it means it allows for some very absurd or counter-intuitive physics.

Look into how video games are modelled. They are engineers at heart because they simply make it work. Make it represent reality. But they don't use the physics we use to model it.

How big are these spheres? What if they overlap? Do moons get their own? Asteroids, comets? If not, what determines whether a body has one of its own?

Hold a magnifying glass on a piece of paper. See how it gets bigger as you drag it around. Think of everything being right next to each other.

Hold out a piece of paper, push your hand down. From the observers point of reference, when they are on the paper it roles up into a ball, when they leave it goes back to being flat.

Carl Sagan had a purpose for talking about the tesseract whatever purpose that was...

Doesn't really answer my question though.

How far away do you have to be before this happens? From the Moon, would you see the Earth change in this way? If you're at the Moon-Earth L1 point, what do you see?

Going back to the previous comment:

would explain why stars are not in the right position.

Do you have evidence for this besides the possible screwup of an anonymous flickr user in labeling a single image?

Do you have evidence for this besides the possible screwup of an anonymous flickr user in labeling a single image?

You have evidence of a completed star map taken from Mars by the people who send shit to Mars? Shouldn't be such a hard thing to present.

If I vacationed in Italy I could draw a map of the hotel I stayed at. Maybe even draw out the boot. If this happened in the 80s or 90s I'd still have the hand drawn map [or an actual map with planned routes penned in].

When you go to Mars it seems it not worth checking surroundings...

The fact that not a single star map from Mars or Saturn or Pluto [New Horizons] seems to exist is wholly unbelievable for a ~70 year space program - ~40 of which they were out past the next planet.

It's absurdity. Trying to convince people and directing them to mountains of useless data for such a simple request is disingenuous.

1595 Map of World - Americas - Notice how the water in the ocean is still on the map? Even though other maps had that as well...

You have evidence of a completed star map taken from Mars by the people who send shit to Mars? Shouldn't be such a hard thing to present.

It would be easy to make them yourself. Here, I'll demonstrate.

I notice the MASTCAM is a little bit shaky (you can see some of the stars are streaky) probably making astrometry harder.

Cassini has got many more clearer images of stars, and I've succeeded in getting astrometry for a few.

Here is one:

http://nova.astrometry.net/user_images/1734587#annotated

I used this image I think:

https://saturnraw.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/casJPGFullS90/N00245243.jpg

It was definitely one of the many very similar images taken from Aug. 7th 2015 by Cassini. The first suitable date (where the pictures are mostly of stars) I happened to find.

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/raw-images

A picture with more than one constellation in it. In 40 years not a single picture with more than one constellation? This is why the Jewel Box picture was important [it was previously mentioned also so its not moving goal posts].

You chose 3 stars in a very limited section from a catalogue which wasn't even taken on Earth.

See what I mean about omitting data by design? You really sell yourself short here. Maybe you should go back to sending things into space vs defending the space program. Unless this is how you are earning your PhD....

I have given you the contact info where you can ask about that photo multiple times. Have you asked them? If not, why not?

Unless this is how you are earning your PhD...

Again with the shill implications?

I have no life, it's true. But I've only gotten wrapped up in this whole argument over the past... I don't even think it's been a week has it? Just a couple days. I've been on Reddit for four years or so.

If you are sincere you have the Oxygen-Ozone revelation. Do something with it. Once you realize that maybe you will look into the Jewel Box yourself.

If you are sincere you have the Oxygen-Ozone revelation.

Ozone generators that use electric fields (corona discharge) also exist but they are a separate thing. In fact they work well under different conditions: UV generators are better suited to work in humid air than corona discharge generators. Yet over time, they " solarize " producing less UV light. When this occurs, they also produce less ozone. Why is this, if UV generators are just creating ozone by way of an electric field anyway?

Here is another paper: Production, Concentration, and Decomposition of Ozone by Ultraviolet Lamps: http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1714828?journalCode=jap

Why does this occur from an ultraviolet lamp and not so much for a visible light fluorescent, if it's just the electric field that matters? The only difference between them is a different phosphor on the tube that emits UV instead of visible light.

Let me guess: this paper is fake or the researchers are wrong? You've asked for experimental evidence, but I have a feeling you will dismiss any that is provided as fake or incorrect without explanation.

Once you realize that maybe you will look into the Jewel Box yourself.

Doesn't answer my question. I'm not the one who cares so much about a single calibration image taken over a decade ago.

If you want it, why haven't you asked for it?

http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.1714828?journalCode=jap

Don't have access to the fullthe paper, but...

Westinghouse Sterilamp

You have the design specs on the Sterilamp? Uses a quartz tube. Also its an arc lamp.

Notice they used to use quartz glass for mercury vapour lamps , but for what wasn't a "sterilamp" they used borosilicate. Which is touted as "blocking" UV.

Above is a "Lifegaurd" brand lamp by Westinghouse, it needs a ballast to run. UV rays are produced, but blocked by the borosilicate glass.

Does borosilicate actually block UV though? Not the wavelength said to cause the Ozone reaction

Two ways to create Ozone. Via photocatalytic reactions or by plasma induction [magnetic fields]. Sending a UV wavelength through a vacuum into o2 and creating ozone has never been reproduced. Nor could it be because the in actual physics there needs to be a barrier or containment field presenting a gas from bleeding into a vacuum.

At the very least an attempt to prove the theory would require sending UV into a vacuum, then into a o2 tank - using various glass barriers since pigments and substrates are proven to cause a o2 - o3 reaction.

I want to make sure I understand your contentions here:

1) UV ozone generators produce ozone, but they don't do it because of the UV radiation itself, rather because of an electrical field.

2) Other fluorescent lamps don't produce ozone (I don't think you disagreed with this) because...?

3) Everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, either deliberately or unknowingly.

Nor could it be because the in actual physics there needs to be a barrier or containment field presenting a gas from bleeding into a vacuum.

Containment field... like gravity? The reason Earth retains an atmosphere to begin with? Gases do escape gradually though, especially lighter ones (hydrogen, helium). Earth having a magnetic field helps; not having one is part of why Mars has only wisps of an atmosphere left.

Anyway, the air gets thinner as you go up, this is why pilots and mountain climbers need to bring gas with them to breathe past a certain altitude. If there is indeed a super dense fluid instead of a vacuum in space, why is there a low pressure region in between the dense part of our atmosphere and that?

Curious...

Sending a UV wavelength through a vacuum into o2 and creating ozone has never been reproduced.

This has been done repeatedly.

https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:46052989

Experiments like the above paper are done in a vacuum chamber.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a169024.pdf

Vacuum chambers themselves can be cleaned by putting a UV lamp inside and allowing a tiny amount (10 ^-4 Torr) of oxygen in, which is converted to ozone and helps disinfect the surfaces.

Of course all of these experiments are fake, or wrong.

Oh how did I know the 'experiment' would involve a quartz tube?

quartz tube nozzle

There seems to be a backwards causality in these experiments. From this paper

Quartz wavelength - 184.9nm / 253.7nm / <300nm

Silica and glass do not produce 184 - and glass doesn't produce 253.

Whats the wavelength of the plasmas before they hit the glass? How do you ignore the glass itself in the causal chain? Especially when changing it removes the effect. It's absurd.

If you apply the same effect to the Ozone layer again we have a glass dome overhead.

Anyway, the air gets thinner as you go up, this is why pilots and mountain climbers need to bring gas with them to breathe past a certain altitude.

False. They do so because its low pressure [the air is the same]. There's not enough pressure mediation allowing the lung to absorb air. The lungs work by pressure mediation.

If there is indeed a super dense fluid instead of a vacuum in space, why is there a low pressure region in between the dense part of our atmosphere and that?

The IACO Standard seems to be theoretical. SR 71 used to melt in high atmosphere - supposedly a low pressure, low temperature, low density environment.

Does that make sense?

I've only seen one high altitude density experiment done on Everest and it didn't meet the predictive model.

But you seem to be confusing density and pressure. All experiments on Earth correlate higher temperature with lower density, low temperature with high density. While there is a variance to this the relative position [of pressure] lower temperatures always coincide with higher density.

In the discussion about observing the transmissions to space craft in relation to their internal frame I noted how beneficial that data is. Yet you messed up and said:

If the speed of light changes it might take longer to get where it's going, but still travel the same distance there and back.

If distance is unchanging how does gravity affect "space-time"? If the speed of light is constant it means density is thus a measure of distance [which changes] relative to light.

Also if you use the time of light travel to calculate distance but that itself is variable what does that say about the calculated distance?

Of course all of these experiments are fake, or wrong.

Never said that. Its more the interpretation is wrong. Unless you believe mankind has never been wrong before or used an interpretation that wasn't the easiest or delivered the most comprehension on a given subject.

Silica and glass do not produce 184 - and glass doesn't produce 253.

They don't produce anything, they are opaque or transparent to certain wavelengths. You don't need a quartz dome to create 184.9 uv light from the sun's rays, you would need a glass dome to stop that wavelength.

How are you proposing ozone is produced from trace oxygen in a vacuum chamber when a UV lamp is turned on inside?

They do so because its low pressure [the air is the same]

You are saying that the density of air is the same at higher altitudes? Why then do balloons have a maximum altitude related to the density of what's inside them?

lower temperatures always coincide with higher density.

Sort of. It depends on what variables you fix in the gas law.

PV=nRT

Yes it's an approximation, just an easy way to see what I mean:

If there's less stuff (mols) present, you can have low temperature, density, and pressure even though decreasing the temperature might make a higher density than it would have otherwise. In other words, low and higher are not exclusive. Example: increase temperature from -15 C to -10 C, the temperature has increased but a person outside might still say it's very cold/low.

If distance is unchanging how does gravity affect "space-time"? If the speed of light is constant it means density is thus a measure of distance [which changes] relative to light.

The effect depends on the body you're talking about. The Moon barely bends light at all compared to something like a black hole. For the purpose of this exercise you can neglect the effect completely, but we can work it out if you really want to.

The effect of the Moon's somewhat elliptical orbit matters more than the gravitational lensing effect.

Also if you use the time of light travel to calculate distance but that itself is variable what does that say about the calculated distance?

My entire point is that you don't use the time of light travel to calculate distance. You use the distance and the time of light travel to find c. Or if you prefer, the average of c over the distance since it will be slightly different in air versus in a vacuum.

Draw a triangle from point A on Earth (transmitter) to point B on the Moon, then back down to another point C on Earth (receiver).

You start off knowing the straight line distance between A and C, which is a chord through the Earth. Depending on the distance it might not go far beneath the surface, in which case you can approximate the Earth as flat if you want.

You then work out the angles A and C that the antenna had to elevate from that chord to point at the Moon. So now you have a triangle of which you know two angles and one side. Obviously you can find the angle B needed for A+B+C=180 degrees.

You can from this work out the length of the other two sides. Call their combined round trip distance D.

We can also double check the distance to the moon in other ways, like using a lunar eclipse .

Anyway:

(average)c=D/t. If the lunar distance is what we've found above, and the intervening distance is filled with something that massively slows light down, the travel time should be much longer. But it's not. It's only a few seconds round trip.

This is the opposite of using c to find the distance to the Moon.

But you can run the calculation the other way, by first getting the value of c in some other measurement. Incidentally it agrees with the value from moon bounce experiments... curious coincidence? Then we can estimate the distance to the moon based on the travel time and speed.

So you can find the distance to the moon first and then work out the speed of light from the travel time. Or if you find the speed of light (some other way) first then measure the travel time to the moon, you can compute a distance to the moon. These numbers agree with each other.

My entire point is that you don't use the time of light travel to calculate distance.

I suppose the range finding experiments for the moon are entirely useless then. As well as all red-shift calculated distances.

If there's less stuff (mols) present, you can have low temperature, density, and pressure even though decreasing the temperature might make a higher density than it would have otherwise

Heat up a can of spray paint in the fire. Temperature increased, so did pressure. Were any "mols" added? No.

Density could be modelled measure of space within the system. If you heat "molecules" they are said to be excited, but even in that model they then occupying different frames - expanded - meaning there is more "space" in the system. Definition of "space" expanding. And its all causally linked to temperature.

Two mediums different densities - same observable space. 1cm3 of metal for instance, speed of sound travels different rates through different types. Just as light does in gas or liquid.

They occupy the same observable "space" yet could be said to have more or less "space" inside them.

Just as light travels different speeds in various mediums. If you say light speed is constant, speed of sound should be as well - it's no different. Neither can be measured in a true vacuum. Sound for obvious reasons - light because a true vacuum doesn't exist.

This is what relativity implies. If light is a constant then it travels at that constant. In dense mediums it observably slows down meaning it travelled the same speed but the actual "space" it travelled increased [within the system or medium].

There should really be a disclaimer for relativity.

I suppose the range finding experiments for the moon are entirely useless then. As well as all red-shift calculated distances.

Do you disagree with the method I showed? At the end I talk about how it works both ways: either use the speed of light (if you have it from some other measurement) for range finding, or use to find the speed of light.

So finding the distance of the moon can be done with or without taking a value for the speed of light ahead of time.

Then once you have a value for c (either because you found it from the moon distance+travel time or you already had a value and used it) you can use it for other purposes, red shift included.

Heat up a can of spray paint in the fire. Temperature increased, so did pressure. Were any "mols" added? No.

Exactly...

PV=nRT

V is fixed (can has a constant volume, ignoring that the metal might deflect slightly before it bursts). n is fixed (no more molecules added). R is fixed (gas constant). Increase T, P increases.

But density stayed the same, because there is still the same amount of mass in the same volume.

At the end I talk about how it works both ways: either use the speed of light (if you have it from some other measurement) for range finding, or use the distance you can find with trig/geometry to find the speed of light.

Circular argument. If its travelling in a medium the speed of light changes. Also for "gravitational lensing" a notion that cannot be experimented with - we see the same observable effect on Earth with refraction of light. This is governed by the density of the medium it passes.

Density thus can be seen as "gravitational lensing". Curious if you accounted for any plasma or gas clouds in space when calculating gravitational lensing. If you do not account for something like this it ignores basic observable phenomena.

But density stayed the same, because there is still the same amount of mass in the same volume.

That's not what these experiments show

Circular argument. If its travelling in a medium the speed of light changes. Also for "gravitational lensing" a notion that cannot be experimented with - we see the same observable effect on Earth with refraction of light. This is governed by the density of the medium it passes.

How is it circular?

Let's start with the first part:

Do you agree with the method I outlined for finding the distance of the Moon from the Earth ( without first having the speed of light)?

If you do, then you can find the speed of light from the travel time and distance traveled.

Alternatively, you can find the speed of light in some other way first. Then, without doing the trig distance calculation, you can find the distance of the .

That's not circular. Circular would be:

(calculate d to the moon based on t and c)-->(calculate c based on d and t)-->(repeat)

What I'm saying is you can do:

(calculate d to the moon WITHOUT c, and measure t)-->(calculate c based on d and t)

OR

(measure t, and have a value of c you already found through some totally different experiment)-->(calculate d from t and c)

It's a circular reasoning for two correlating calculations. Correlation is not causation but causation must correlate. Which means you cannot leave out any causative function.

It's the whole Erastothenes argument about the size of the Earth. It would work both ways . Not saying the Earth is flat but you get the idea.

The best way to prove something is attempting to falsify it. The moons distance was calculated numerous times using geometry with varying results

It also ignores the mediums surrounding it. Light travels different in those mediums.

Not sure about the geometric calculation either since Bolivia to Cleveland is 6686km away from each other but the angle of the Moon is 25 and 30 degrees [respectively]. That puts the moon at a distance of 3-4000kms...

To make things more concise I'm going to refer to experiments #1 and #2 for short:

1) Find d to moon using geometry, find c from d and round trip t.

2) Assume c based on some other experiment, find d from c and round trip t.

It also ignores the mediums surrounding it. Light travels different in those mediums.

This only affects the result of experiment #2, which I will agree you can dispute if you say the light travels at a different speed in some medium in space you aren't aware of (so you assume it's a vacuum by mistake).

In that case, at what altitude does the not-vacuum start? I think you said it was something that slowed light down to 17 m/s (correct me if I misremember). Since round trip to the moon is on the order of a couple seconds in these experiments, the Moon must be right in the beginning of that medium in your model.

Not sure about the geometric calculation either since Bolivia to Cleveland is 6686km away from each other but the angle of the Moon is 25 and 30 degrees [respectively].

Ok so this one is for experiment #1.

I'm not sure where you got those angles from. They will vary by the time of day and you are forgetting about azimuth. This whole thing is way, way easier to calculate if you pick two places that are the same longitude. The reason is that if they're not, you need to consider the effect of azimuth as well as elevation. When they're at the same longitude, and the moon is highest, then one looks ~N and one looks ~S above the horizon to see it. This makes the math much easier.

Then it will look like this mspaint diagram that isn't to scale but I hope gets the idea across.

I'm going to use similar latitude to what you already gave, but change the longitude to be the same: Point A: 45 N 80 W and point B: 16 S 80 W.

Moon elevation from point A

Moon elevation from point B

Moon is at its height at 13:20 in both places. 60 deg and 58.9 deg respectively.

In order to draw the triangle correctly we also have to account for the angle from the chord between the two points, not from the horizon. See what I mean in the same mspaint diagram . If we just measured the elevation of the Moon from the horizon (i.e. from a tangent line to the circle) we would be leaving out part of the real angle of the triangle.

To account for this, we add half the great circle angle between them at each point. So imagine, since they are 61 deg latitude difference, someone at point A would have to drill into the Earth at an angle 30.5 deg to the horizon to reach point B. So the elevation of the moon from that tunnel is 30.5 deg greater than it is from the horizon.

The great circle angle between them is 61 deg, so add half that to each elevation:

90.5 deg at point A, 89.4 deg at point B.

I get 3830587.718 for one side and 3830651.898 for the other. Both well within the range of the Moon's distance.

You can model it however you want its been done numerous ways and many different conclusions are drawn. Can you do the same thing pole to pole?

In any case you are just pushing more theoretical hypotheticals. Only care about observation.

This is not a hypothetical. It has been done many times by amateur radio operators, and if you're just interested in the geometry (and not the radio distance) you can do it with two friends who live some latitude apart observing the inclination of the moon at its height on the same night.

It's funny when researching these things that in every case they mention how Cassini or Keppler or whoever "used the correct way to measure the distances" but then "they were very wrong in their conclusions" is always added in and the actual distances are not mentioned unless they "were surprisingly close to what we know today" the rest were "errors" or "miscalculation".

Hilarious rewriting of history.

You are changing the subject a little bit here.

Do you disagree with the calculation I provided?

It's a calculation. You can calculate the world on a back of a turtle its still just a calculation. Wanna do it again from each pole - north pole / south pole. You won't have to add or remove any degrees for the angle of the great circle.

It's a calculation based on observation. Remember amateur radio groups hold competitions for moon bounce transmissions... countless people have done this themselves.

You didn't answer the question though: do you agree with the calculation? Which part of the geometry do you think is wrong? Do you think that the Moon doesn't actually reach the inclination indicated at the time indicated?

Wanna do it again from each pole - north pole / south pole. You won't have to add or remove any degrees for the angle of the great circle.

Find me a time when the Moon is visible from both the North and South pole and we can do that.

Here

You still haven't told me if you disagree with anything about the previous example.

I think you made a mistake here; I almost made it too. When I clicked to set lat/long and changed from -84.2672 to +84.2672 it changed successfully but it also changed the time zone (why, I don't know).

Compare the time stamp (05:19 UTC-5) with the time stamp on your link (05:19 UTC+0).

The moon is 2.96 deg elevation at the north point at 05:19 UTC-5, and 4.86 deg elevation at the south point at 05:19 UTC... but this is not the same time.

So I adjusted to 00:19 UTC-5 (which is 05:19 UTC, not sure why it won't let me change the time zone) and found that the moon was barely not visible (-0.35 deg).

I found a time when the moon is visible from a similar pair of locations. Here and here . Note the time stamps being 5 hours different with a time zone difference of 5 hours... checks out.

I'll start with the chord length. I get 12678.26 km between the two points: 80 deg 16 min N to 80 deg 16 min.

We see an apparent elevation of 6.41 deg at the south point and 11.37 deg at the north point.

When the moon is this close to the horizon we need to take into account atmospheric refraction.

I think a flat earther might disbelieve in atmospheric refraction, but you're not one. The effect of atmospheric refraction has been determined through observation of stars. As stars are moving overhead they seem to move at a constant angular rate. Yet as they approach the horizon they seem to slow down slightly. This is because as they approach the horizon the effect of atmospheric refraction is increasing. The amount of refraction matches what we expect from the refractive index of air (varies with temperature, but negligibly for our purposes), which has also been empirically determined.

Anyway here is a table of values we can use:

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td/td1703/thomas.pdf

Table on p. 282 (p. 4 in the pdf).

Refraction at 7 deg apparent inclination is 7.4 min, and refraction at 11 deg apparent inclination is 4.9 min.

Our actual inclinations are slightly different but I'll use these values as an approximation for now. We get an adjusted ("true") inclination of 6.286666667 deg and 11.28833333 deg.

Results:

If I use the apparent inclinations, I get a value of 425956.9049 and 426500.3817 for the triangle sides. This is about 12% too long to be the 379106 km value the webpage gives for the distance of the moon at this instance.

When we use the inclinations corrected for refraction, we get 376660.6721 and 376110.6083 km for the side lengths. This is very close, within 1% of the 379106 km value the webpage gives.

And I didn't even bother interpolating the refraction adjustments! If I do that, the approximation gets even better, to within 0.04%! Very nice.

In any case, it's certainly not 3000-4000 km!

How are you calculating the distance?

Law of sines . Triangle ABC, with B at the moon and A and C on Earth.

Here is the calculation done after the first-order refraction correction (but before I did interpolation to make it even better):

Side AC: Chord length from North to South viewing sites. 12558.58 km.

Angle A: South point inclination (6.268333 deg)+80.26666667 deg (80.26... is half the great circle angle between 80 deg 16' North and South, same procedure as before.)=86.535 deg

Angle C: North point inclination (11.28333 deg)+80.26666667 deg (80.26... is half the great circle angle between 80 deg 16' North and South, same procedure as before.)=91.555 deg

Angle B: Triangle must be 180 degrees, so C=180-91.555-86.535=1.91 deg

We want to find sides AB and BC.

AB/sin(C)=AC/sin(B)

Solve for AB:

AB=sin(C)*AC/sin(B)

Plug in the values from above. sin(91.555 deg)*(12558.58 km)/sin(1.91 deg)=376660.6721.

Yeah, knew there was something fishy going on there. The "great circle" angle is engineering the equation to fit the desired result.

It's curious an Astrolabe works by a flat plane with a celestial sphere and is incredibly accurate. Yet you need to buff numbers for this to work.

Also this works if the world is inside-out correct? Not opposed to that or even the model but it requires many assumptions. It's not "proof" of anything besides another way to model it.

Yeah, knew there was something fishy going on there. The "great circle" angle is engineering the equation to fit the desired result.

No.

Earth is a ~sphere. You aren't seriously disputing this, right?

We're not "buffing" the numbers. We are drawing a line on a ~sphere between two points.

The horizon always rises to eye level. How do you get 80 degrees of arc? [80th parallel so 80 degrees?].

Earth is a concave sphere right.

I refer you to my diagram from before . How do you measure the two angles in that triangle that are on Earth?

Surely you see how the elevation from the horizon (the horizon being tangent to the circle) isn't the whole angle.

If two observers were exactly at the poles, they are 180 degrees apart from each other on the circle. What direction would they have to turn to look at each other through the Earth? They would have to look straight down, that is, 90 deg declination from the horizon, into the ground. 90=180/2. This is obvious right?

They start walking towards each other. Eventually they will meet at the equator and be able to look straight at each other (looking at the horizon 0 deg). In between, the angle they need to look down to point at each other is the same as each of their latitude, and half the difference in latitudes.

Move them to 45 deg latitude N/S. Now they are 90 degrees apart from each other on the circle. What direction do they have to turn to look at each other through the Earth? They each need to look 45 degrees down from the horizon. 45=90/2. Draw it yourself if you don't believe me.

Same story when they are at 80 deg N/S. Now they are 160 degrees apart from each other on the circle. What direction do they have to tun to look at each other through the Earth? They each need to look 80 degrees down from the horizon. 80=160/2. Draw it yourself if you don't believe me.

Okay I see what you are doing now. Congratulations then? You modelled the Earth and Moon after being told the distance and it worked. Back to the original point.

A model of it being other shapes work as well. So Im not sure what its supposed to prove.

This model wasn't used before the lunar distance was learned. It was learned in Project Diana [classified] and another project [classified] and shortly after the range-reflectors were put on the moon.

If you want to link the original [classified] experiments on how they came to their conclusions it would be of some actual benefit. You can model the world as a grape for all I care, if someone told you it was you'd be trying to convince me with math. Where's the original experimental data?

Any luck figuring out what the 100-200 day lapses in the planetary orbits are?

after being told the distance

No...

The entire point of this is we calculate the distance from basic geometry and observation. Without having been told the distance ahead of time.

What other models does this work under? Can you go through the math as I have done? Would be very curious to see it.

planetary orbits

One thing at a time. I would start by using more than one decimal place though.

Without having been told the distance ahead of time.

You never read about the distance before learning this method of calculation - When was it conceived? They use geometry to guess the distance of the moon for thousands of years - with observations. It wasn't until the classified experiments by the Navy did a incontestable narrative come out about the distance.

For one - the model shouldn't work , because Earth is shaped like this . Pick two times in Kansas and do the equation, since its flatter than a pancake.

Also notice something here . See how the curvature falls away from the horizon line. It doesn't do so on Earth. The curvature rises to eye level .

So Ill ask real specific here - you keep saying the Earth is a sphere. Convex or concave. ?

You never read about the distance before learning this method of calculation

What does that have to do with it? If someone tells me something is 3' long and then I measure it with a yardstick, the measurement isn't invalidated because I was told what it would be ahead of time.

We don't use the lunar distance as an input into our calculations... only the observations of the moon's angle combined with grade school geometry and the shape of the Earth.

So I'll ask real specific here: supposing that the Earth is convex-spherical, do you agree with the calculation? In other words, your only argument against this result is "the earth is a different shape than you think" right?

And if you do think the Earth is a different shape, please do the math on how you compute the moon's distance in your model as I have done for mine.

For one - the model shouldn't work, because Earth is shaped like this

This is not a depiction of the Earth's actual shape, it's a depiction of the Geoid and it even says so on the picture . Don't forget to also look at the scale... from -80 to 80 meters, with the visual model exaggerated for easier viewing.

The curvature rises to eye level.

No.

And even if it did, why can't you see more of the Earth's surface curving "up" above the horizon? Even with binoculars or a telescope? Yet you can see things such as tall buildings jutting up over the horizon.

Curious...

If someone tells me something is 3' long and then I measure it with a yardstick

Entirely different scenario. Unless you plan to measure the moon with a yard-stick.

We don't use the lunar distance as an input into our calculations.

But you already had the lunar distance you believe is correct. Why are the dozens or hundreds of other calculations using geometry incorrect? Eratosthenes did his own calculations. If he accurately predicted the size of the Earth why are his other calculations not valid?

Why won't you answer if the Sphere is convex or concave? The cool thing is your models would probably work interchangeably, and it would also explains some anomalies in recorded data and broken physics.

No.

Meant to say "horizon". Yes it does. Level a camera and take a picture. Where is the horizon? "eye level" is not entirely accurate, it rises with increase in level or eye level.

And even if it did, why can't you see more of the Earth's surface curving "up" above the horizon? Even with binoculars or a telescope? Yet you can see things such as tall buildings jutting up over the horizon.

Perspective, vanishing points and atmospheric refraction. The mainline arguments people bring up explaining loopy physics with the convex model. Except they are incorrect.

Look at this attempt to debunk curvature anomalies - do you believe a human stands the height of Everest?

Concave light propagation would be something like this which is reproducible at the experiment level.

I already answered you: convex.

Now I would love to see your answer to the following:

1) do you agree that if the Earth is convex, the moon is the distance calculated?

2) what is your math for the distance of the moon (based on the same observations... use the 80.something latitude spots in my earlier comment) in the concave model? What does the geometry look like?

Depends on how light works.

Ok. Propose a specific model for how light works, and apply it to the observations of the moon to compute where it is in the concave Earth.

You are not on the same wavelength. I never claimed to know how the world works.

Have any explanation yet for the missing 100-200 days in the orbital periods?

If we can't agree on the shape of the Earth, we will never be able to agree about the rest of the solar system. We were talking about this first and then you brought the retrograde stuff up, and I sad we'd get to it next. I haven't forgotten.

Anyway.

I'm not asking you to know. I'm asking you to hypothesize, propose an alternative, you don't have to say it's definitely true. You say the moon observations work in a concave Earth too; can you work through the geometry for me? In that model, where is the moon? How do you obtain that result?

Suppose we are at an impasse then. If there is falsifying evidence within the regular model physics doesn't work as expected. How are you going to calculate the moon frame without knowing the physics at play?

Your interest is in the moon. Mine is not. Unless you can source the original classified experiments from the original moon-range-finding experiments its of zero interest to me.

Make up your own physics. It seems you don't have any alternative model that explains these observations.

If we disagree on the shape of the Earth I don't see how we can go any further, so yes, we would be at an impasse then.

. If there is falsifying evidence within the regular model

There isn't. "I perceive the horizon as curving up" isn't falsifying evidence. Get an inclinometer and measure it.

And then propose some alternative, or else agree the Earth is a convex sphere as has been known since antiquity.

There isn't. "I perceive the horizon as curving up" isn't falsifying evidence.

You still haven't explained the missing 100-200 days in the orbital paths of the planets. Highly doubtful the standard model predicts such a thing.

And if that's true, then the speed of light must be correct too based on separate observations of the travel time there.

You still haven't posted the original classified work calculating the distance. Are you suggesting experiment design cannot be made to get intended results? There's a reason much of that information is still classified.

How is pressure and temperature not an absolute marker of how much "space" is in a system

The density thing was a misnomer. Since there's various meanings behind "density" - like apparent density and particle density. If you visualize everything being attached to a substrate or 'aether' it starts getting confusing. Just stick with pressure and temperature since its a better marker. The picture explains the point that was being made.

Lower temperature = less space. Not sure how this is hard to grasp or controversial when its basic flight mechanics. What happens in the upper atmosphere gets tricky because its based off hypothetical calculations.

If an airplane is at 40,000 ft, and flying level - the horizon line should be well below the plane [using geometry to model]. Yet find any cockpit view and the horizon is in front of the plane .

Link and curvature calculator

What the line of sight should be from an airplane flying level

What the line of sight should be - 2 (left to right)

What appears to be actually happening

You still haven't explained the missing 100-200 days in the orbital paths of the planets. Highly doubtful the standard model predicts such a thing.

I will do so if you can first propose a model accounting for the observations of the moon, with actual geometric calculations to back it up.

Are you suggesting experiment design cannot be made to get intended results?

Which part of the observation are you saying has been changed to give the intended result? It seems the only thing you are disputing is the shape of the Earth. Assuming that is convex spherical for a moment-- do you understand and agree with the way the triangle is drawn?

horizon

Measure it at sea level and at height. Give me the raw data not just what "appears to be happening."

Assuming that is convex spherical for a moment-- do you understand and agree with the way the triangle is drawn?

It's a little irrelevant because the shape of the Earth changes the distances and everything else about the Moon. And yes it can be modelled multiple ways.

That's the point of fleshing out the falsifying observations first. Because if the model is wrong everything is wrong.

Measure it at sea level and at height. Give me the raw data not just what "appears to be happening."

I provided the claimed model with photographic/observable evidence contradicting it. It's not built on any assumption of the moons distance. Since I cannot observe the moons distance I cannot verify its correct. You can fly in any plane or look at the hundreds [thousands - hundreds of thousands?] of picture as well as this video of a weather balloon high altitude which can be used to observe the physics Im speaking about. It's painfully simple.

Does the angle of horizon change as altitude is increased? Yes or no? [it should - basic geometry says it should] How has this not been measured properly in a repeatable experiment?

It's a little irrelevant because the shape of the Earth changes the distances and everything else about the Moon. And yes it can be modelled multiple ways.

I'm going to try to ask this very clearly:

1) Assuming the Earth is spherical as described, you agree the lunar distance checks out according to those observations, right?

2) You say it can be modeled multiple ways--model it a different way. Describe the shape of the Earth and then work through the geometry of where the moon is according to the observations of it.

Does the angle of horizon change as altitude is increased? Yes or no? [it should - basic geometry says it should] How has this not been measured properly in a repeatable experiment? The fact you don't have an experiment to easily prove this wrong is very telling. Also why flat earthers have a point [not that the Earth is flat but that there is a major problem in the models claimed]

I have proposed one for you to try. Why don't you do it? If I do you won't believe me anyway. Measure the horizon with an inclinometer at sea level and then do it again at a great height.

Were talking about the models you claim to know are correct. If there is falsifying evidence for those models are you not interested? I never claimed to have a model that works.

Without finding out whats wrong in the accepted models its impossible to formulate a new one.

Basic scientific thought here - hypothesis / experiment - attempted falsification. Funny how you ignore anything that contradicts the model you believe is correct when I have no model I subscribe to.

Ok, let me refine my questions then:

1) Assume for the moment earth is a convex sphere of the usual radius. Does the geometry I gave work out, and calculate the distance of the moon correctly? If not, do you disagree with how I drew the triangle or with the law of sines?

2) You are saying that you have no alternative model for the shape of the Earth, then?

Nice straw man.

You aren't answering the first question either. Assume for the moment the Earth is a sphere as described. Based on the observations of the moon, and that assumption, do you agree with the calculation for its distance?

Then, I am asking you if there is an alternative--any alternative, such as the concave Earth you are suggesting--where these observations can be accounted for. In that model, where is the moon? Again, not asking you to say you know what the shape is. You said this works in a concave Earth--how?

I'll get into the other stuff when I'm back at my computer tonight. For now, focus rather than trying to deflect this.

Listen, you brought up the moon. I didn't. You claim the moon calculations prove something. They only do if the true distance is correct or the model of the Earth is correct. Yet in the face of contrary evidence to both models you believe in you keep bringing up the moon.

You are still not answering the question...

You brought up the airplanes. I didn't. :P see how that works? You expect me to look into what you say is falsifying evidence. I agree and will. But you also need to acknowledge supporting evidence.

The geometry I'm showing only assumed the shape of the Earth. It does not assume the distance of the moon--it calculates that based on observations.

Do you agree--assuming that the shape of the Earth is as described--that the calculation is correct?

Then the other question: You have specifically said that a concave Earth can explain these observations too. I would like to know how.

The density thing was a misnomer. Since there's various meanings behind "density"

I'm using the most straightforward definition: rho=m/v

You said that if you fill a bottle with air (that is, capture X molecules of air) at Everest and then bring it back down to sea level, the bottle sucks in and occupies a smaller space.

m is the same, v has decreased.

Forget the bottle since I've never done it myself and we are talking about relative density. I have flown in a private plane however. If the temperature changes the distance to the Earth, in a stated pressure zone - how is that not the amount of "space" in the system that changed.

Tired of the straw mans.

Can you explain to me what you mean by the different types of density?

In a sea of bad information its very hard to know what is accurate or not. Which is why I stick to observable evidence as much as possible. Any time a model is built on theory or assumption [which the majority are] it leaves room for exponential error. Already said drop the bottle thing.

The point I was making was in the air columns and temperature changes.

The point is lost on you as are most points. You are now blocked - there's no point in any further discussion because you aren't interested in science. You appear interested in pushing beliefs. You may do well in a cult or religion - if what you are apart of isn't already defined as such.

I am sorry you feel that way. I was quite enjoying this.

Entirely different scenario. Unless you plan to measure the moon with a yard-stick.

I'll bite: how does knowing the distance ahead of time affect the result, then? Remember that we're using basic trig here... Does the law of sines change based on what you think the result will be?

What kind of sphere? The horizon always rises to eye level. Why is that?

Answered in other comment.

Humor me. Is the Earth a convex sphere or a concave one?

Convex.

Only care about what can be personally observed. If I'm going to believe in some random idea it will be my own.

You can personally observe this. Measure the inclination of the moon and have a trusted friend do the same at a different latitude. If you choose not to try, that's on you.

Also, does this mean you won't accept the result of any experiment if you didn't conduct it yourself?

Depends.

So there's a curious thing with the planets if you map the synodic cycle of when they reach the palm of Virgo.

Now compare that to the years cited by NASA.

All of the outer planets meet up perfectly with their position in the night sky relative to a complete circuit of the celestial sphere. What's really interesting though is that every few years or so the trip is extended by 40 days for Mercury, decreased by 100 days for Venus, decreased 200 days for Mars. As well as 200 day variations in Jupiter and Mars though the variations are smaller in comparison to the very long duration. Hence the "~" being used.

Those missing days are very telling. If the solar system model is correct and this accurately predicts the years of planetary orbits than why are there missing days from their motion?

I want to come back to this after we finish the moon (if the moon is wrong, we can say that the whole solar system is called into question, but if its not, then we can move on to this).

Can I get the source you are using so we are working from the same starting point?

The moon is not really of interest. This is all created data from Stellarium which uses astronomical charts.

Here

Hand of Virgo position

On second thought I need to find the moon's max inclination more precisely than the site I linked will show (it only does 10 minute intervals, and the moon has a few degrees of azimuth at the greatest height... when we're working with angles so small I need to be closer than that).

Follow up!

Sorry for my earlier mixups. Turns out I had set the flag on 'sun' instead of 'moon' and it checks out now. See the main comment.

You are saying that the density of air is the same at higher altitudes? Why then do balloons have a maximum altitude related to the density of what's inside them?

Absolutely not. The density of air is correlated to temperature. What the true densities of air is at higher altitudes are no one can know because its almost always done hypothetically.

The air is the same mixture on Everest or at sea level. Yet if you filled a plastic bottle with it and brought it back down the bottle would be sucked in. You can easily say the "space" the air occupies [since it has the same composition] is less. The observable space [the bottle] changes when its returned to sea level. Thus, the air occupies less "space".

Think of it like this

Yet if you filled a plastic bottle with it and brought it back down the bottle would be sucked in. You can easily say the "space" the air occupies [since it has the same composition] is less.

Ok, so now you have the same mass of air inside the bottle but it occupies less volume. So its density has increased, density literally being defined as mass/volume. I think we agree on that.

You've just argued that a bottle of air becomes more dense when you bring it down to a lower altitude. Or in other words, if you bring that same bottle back up, it will expand again and the air inside will become less dense.

So... air is less dense at higher altitudes? You've just argued that a bottle of it becomes more dense at lower altitudes.

Ok, so now you have the same mass of air inside the bottle but it occupies less volume.

How is it the same mass of air? The entire point is that the volume holds a different mass of air at different altitude.

Weight is mass * gravity. Are you positing that both bottles weigh the same even if measured at sea level?

Let me make sure I understand the steps of this:

1) Bring a bottle up to Everest

2) Fill it with air there

3) Close the bottle (right?)

4) Return to sea level

5) Bottle gets "sucked in" and occupies less volume

If this is what you meant, how did any mass enter the bottle? I suppose some could have leaked in, but that's not what you mean I think.

Have to flesh out ideas on this better.

I see.

Cannot find a single instance of Ozone being stored in a canister or vacuum. In fact all searches are directed to Ozone generators.

If its easy to generate why wouldn't there be canistered Ozone just like there is canistered [every gas there is]. Ozone has a half-life which is governed by temperature. It's claimed its because its an "unstable molecule" but its basically the exact same thing as a "nuclear" half-life.

Most interesting is temperature changes the decay rate...

"Radioactive" decay rates are not constant

long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation.

Interesting that experiments to create liquid and isolated ozone in 1940s caused spontaneous and unpredicted explosions. Sounds exactly like "nuclear" materials and what Gaylon Windsor described handling them .

You didn't ask about storage before, you asked about production. How is ozone created from traces of oxygen let in a vacuum chamber with a UV lamp as is done in many of them for cleaning? Are you denying that this is done?

How is ozone created from traces of oxygen let in a vacuum chamber with a UV lamp as is done in many of them for cleaning?

How is ozone not created every day hitting the O2 in the air? [at sea level]

My understanding is the wavelength that creates ozone is absorbed strongly by the atmosphere in the process and doesn't reach so low. Of course we are far afield from my area here. Again: damnit Jim I'm an engineer not a physicist! :)

So in short - in the entire history of the space program [besides some Mastcam images which label non-existent stars] no one has taken a sky map and matched up each individual star.

I imagine you would say that it was not RAW DATA at that point.

It wouldn't be raw data but it would be expected given the public narrative of space exploration.

Can't forget about the Hayabusa star tracker either.

http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/e/snews/2005/0815_hayabusa.shtml

Stars: check Not in Earth orbit: check Reasonably wide field of view: check Not even from NASA: check

I'm assuming there is some other reason you are going to disqualify these pictures though.

There's that Pantheon again - from the Hayabusa mission

Collaboration with OSIRIS-REx Team

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jul2014/presentations/0330_Tue_Abell_Hyabusa2.pdf

What's going on in this model of the flight path. Similar to how a geocentric model of the solar system produces the flower effect

Seems like you don't have any complaint about the image itself, then. That's good!

I think this is actually the sequel mission, imaginatively named Hayabusa-2. That's what a long elliptical orbit around a body that is itself orbiting something else looks like. Consider a point moving around in an elliptical shape, then take that elliptical path and drag it in a circle around something else. The result will look like that image. The fact that the spacecraft moves faster at the periapsis of its orbit is one of Kepler's laws:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kepler.html

As for why it obeys this (since Kepler's laws are only descriptive) it's Newton's law of universal gravitation which I'm sure you know.

For fun: You can get a similar looking effect (not exactly the same because it's moving along a line) by playing around with cycloids, here is an example image:

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/CycloidFromARollingEllipse/HTMLImages/index.en/popup_1.jpg

And a tool from Wolfram to play with:

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/CycloidFromARollingEllipse/

I got an inbox about your last comment but it doesn't seem to be here:

You could upload to Mega.nz My tone was inappropriate. Also the biases held are somewhat from a lack of systems to operate in the user-space set up [which after you presented the resources this dawned on me]. So it would be more appropriate on my end to resolve that before making blanket statements. Been following these topics [forums] for too many years. On that note - there are no coincidences on names.

I think the "ISIS" name was chosen after the Egyptian goddess. Though ISIS (terrorists) technically existed at the time the MRO was launched, I don't think hardly anybody knew who they were until 3 or 4 years ago. So in my opinion it really is a darkly humorous coincidence, like those poor people who were named after the goddess and now get harassed about it. :(

The Egyptian Pantheon makes a lot of appearances in the sciences, television and government/military .

It wouldn't surprise me. I know celestial bodies are named after various pantheons. Jupiter and it's moons (many of which are named for the big guy's various lovers) are Greco-Roman, so are the rest of the planets and their moons. Of course the asteroids are all over the place, from Vesta (Roman) to Haumea (Hawaiian) and many others.

You seem to be hinting there's a reason for this beyond just trying to be poetic. What might it be?

Ancient myth is engrained into our world. On so many levels. They are the archetypes of our personality and manifest in the seen and unseen. Not sure how to explain it better than that.

From an epistemological aspect one might that the world hasn't changed at all whatsoever since earliest recordings, only that certain things are renamed, and in many cases remain the same.

There's an idiom for this: Nothing new under the sun.

I get the idea of nothing new under the sun. Don't follow why that means anything nefarious.

Nefarious is a loaded word. Many people who keep secrets do so for the benefit of others [or what they perceive as a necessary evil]. Though others react in opposition to that because they don't want to be protected - or they are seeking deeper meaning or truth. And for gain as well.

Nature of the beast.

Then in another frame - you have a long history of secrets and people start making connections - a narrative forms. Hard to gauge what the underlying reality is without being a part of it.

Also even if you are involved in something, doesn't necessarily mean you will be aware of something. Awareness can be described as [true] understanding the small and large implications of the environment. Which is basically wisdom. True sentiments that aren't overly specific applying across many situations.

It wasn't meant to imply nefarious action simply a statement of understanding.

Ok, sorry for the wording. Still totally at a loss to what the pattern might mean. IMO it's just people making cultural references with the names. Ancient folks regarded the planets as symbolic of deities. Even though today we understand they're not, the naming convention continues and bleeds over to related subjects.

You can absolutely get all the raw data from this mission that you want!

Except the images used internal internally .

Find the rest of this this image .

the live stream from ISS

hilarous

How many people are employed to fake images and video and papers from the many, many space missions every day? Just give me an estimate, I'm curious.

the space station from which the photos are taken orbits with the earth. it can't record the spinning because it is part of the spin.

You're new to this whole thing, huh? I'm sure you'll be a real disinformationialist soon enough, though.

its not geostationary.

There is ton of video from the space station and the shuttles. I remember watching the NASA channel once and being mesmerized by the Earth going by below. It wasn't the whole ball but clearly it is a ball.

Do you happen to live under that bridge?

How would you fake a live stream that never repeats and exactly matches local observable cloud cover and weather conditions?

Also explain how they fake real-time unpredictable events like ash clouds from volcanic eruptions.

This guy isn't looking for a voice of reason, they are looking to confirm their bias or further a dumb myth. Not sure which...

Flattards are getting more and more insane and also militant. Not sure why.

Where are the x-rays and MRI's of insides of flat-earthers' heads. They have yet to prove that a brain exists among them.

The x-ray images are faked by the HHS! Wake up sheeple! /s

What do you mean by "stationary location"? Stationary in relation to what? Everything in orbit is in motion around the earth's center of gravity, it's physically impossible just to "hang" in space -- in such a case the object would just plummet straight down to the earth at constant acceleration of 1 g.

Also, why would NASA send up a camera to just record HD video for 24 hours straight? That would require a ridiculous huge amount of storage space given the weight and transmission limitations of spacecraft. If you want, NASA does have satellites in high orbit that take pictures every couple hours , which can be compiled into a video of the earth's rotation . Since video is just still pictures shown rapidly, you can think of that as a video with a super slow framerate and super sped up replay.

Why does it mention the bible in the linked graphic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VWM0XswwGg

Not quite a video, but close.

no clouds move

You sure?

I shared this image and someone said it was debunked because of different satellites over time. Yea right.

Shockingly, when you use different cameras and different image settings, pictures look different. #nofilter and all that.

delete the stars from the pictures

Stars are much fainter than the Sun is, as well as the Earth and Moon (when they're lit up). They're not photoshopped out of these images, because exposure times short enough that the dayside Earth isn't washed out are too short for the stars to appear.

Sure, plenty of photos at night, or composites do. In fact there is some good ISS video where you can see the nightside Earth and some of the stars at once. This is just some random guy's upload, the first one I could find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9oPUNaqXE

The problem is when the Earth is much brighter (during the day) you have a hard time with the exposure settings.

I "believe" in the globe because I have proved it for myself, with radio moonbounce and other work that only functions in the established model of the solar system.

these are fake. I know because I have experience making 3d images and editing photos with photoshop.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-looks-shopped

These fake ISS videos are just a regular video from the cockpit of plane flying and then they added a bunch of effects

At what altitude would you say this is done at? How is the CGI done in real time during the live streams from the station?

How is the CGI done in real time during the live streams from the station?

you tell us

No. If you believe the video to be CGI, explain how you believe it is done in real time during the streams. I know it's not, and I'm not going to explain something I don't believe in.

Ok, how is that done to match the weather patterns occuring during the stream?

Himawari-8 - Japanese weather satellite with real-time imagery of the Pacific. The satellite is geostationary so the view isn't going to change.

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

that is really cool. For some reason, I'd have thought weather sats would be closer than that. That one seemed very far out.

How does GPS work, then? Keep in mind you can look up open source GPS receiver code to check out how it works yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_off-line_GPS_software

All of these programs only work with the assumption of a round Earth with satellites in orbit overhead. If you don't believe it, download one of them, check the code out for yourself, and run it to see if it works.

Examine the open-source code for yourself, and see that they only work if the signals they are receiving come from satellites.

There's an American one for the Atlantic also but the name eludes me right now. And the Japanese one has a better website.

You're not going to get live streaming video from a satellite, even in 2017. It takes too much bandwidth.

You're the one who doesn't believe it. Go get a weather balloon that can go to about 80,000 feet and a camera. You will see that the earth is not flat.

Surely you can post the video you took, then? As an amateur radio operator I'd also love more details about the balloon setup you used!

Is this your video? What was the setup you used?

I see there is still no reply. Lol

Imagine my surprise.

I would assume over the moon

How can you not see that slight curvature. Its obvious.

How's this?

https://youtu.be/vbxzGxSmxrE

OP should be vindicated, because the sun is clearly spinning around the Earth in this video, and this video proves the Earth doesn't spin at all.

Except this is obviously CGI mindfuckery designed to keep everyone from discovering the truth, just as Flat Earth is a distraction from the real truth, as all Toroidal Earthers know.

It's called geostationary orbit... lmao

How about this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs

can't tell if you're being sarcastic

:(

Being sarcastic online was so much easier before taking pride in ignorance became so ubiquitous.

It's not my sense of humour that's broken, it's the world.

At first I thought you were being serious but I reread it and saw that you weren't

You obviously didn't watch the whole video because they show the clouds moving specifically lmao

They distort because you're watching a 2D video of a 3D object😂😂

Yeah, how so?

Lmao dude.... probably because that shits modeled after reality. Hence why 3D cgi would mimic reality

I used to model earth on C4D

Prove that your head is not flat. When I look at a photo of you, I only see a 2-D surface. And we all know you cannot fit a 3-D brain into a 2-D disc. So, we must conclude you are brainless.

Clouds do not change position over 24 hours.

They do, but a very little, hardly noticeable amount

Added a link to sat data time-lapse. If they are moving similar something is up.

try emerging from your bunker sometime and looking up at the real sky and real clouds.

I'm talking about on a big scale lmao...

If you've never seen the real sky, check out a weather radar or cloud cover map online. You can watch the clouds move over your whole region live. Clouds move quite a bit, and far over the course of a couple hours, which you should easily see over a time lapse video.

I'm not talking 100 mile area, I'm talkin about a 2000+ mile area

That's 1/4 the whole diameter and not necessary to see clouds moving. The clouds over 200 miles should move quite a bit over a 6 hour or more time lapse video just as they would in an interactive weather map. 2000 miles of clouds moving would be much more pronounced. I'd like to see video of weather maps or cloud cover maps and compare them to the NASA "globe" video of the same date and time.

2000 miles would not be more pronounced 😂😂 it would have to move a much farther distance for it to have a similar amount movement. If they're moving the same speed it would look like the bigger map moves a lot less than the smaller map

If you want to see the bright side of earth in detail then the lights would be too dim to pick up on the cameras. If you wanted to see the lights on the dark side, the bright side would be over exposed.

The exposure settings change with time, but to get both the light and the dark in a single frame with both being detailed is different. You could do an HDR image but that would require multiple exposures

Neither are you

The ISS does not show the whole globe in one feed

If you want to see the bright side of earth in detail then the lights would be too dim to pick up on the cameras.

city lights in daylight !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

theres some brianiacs of city bosses there. the taxes there must be fun.

Just look at the pictures provided notice the size of north america changes greatly

the ISS video which is accessible form several sources at the same time.

rarely matches, ditto the reported position on maps, so that is clear fakery.

DON'T feed the troll!

Nobody is THIS ignorant in reality. And look here we are discussing this shit? It's a distraction folks.

Well if anybody should have an idea of how much a shill gets paid, it would be you. So you tell me.

I'm a bot, bleep , bloop . Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [ /r/topmindsofreddit ] “So we have still photos of the "globe" from space, how about a video of the globe spinning taken from a stationary location?”

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. ( Info / Contact )}

2000 miles would not be more pronounced 😂😂 it would have to move a much farther distance for it to have a similar amount movement. If they're moving the same speed it would look like the bigger map moves a lot less than the smaller map

I'm not sure if you're proposing that the earth is flat, you do seem to be skeptical of a 'globe' theory, but I'll assume you do believe the earth to be flat. I cannot present a video as proof, it could be falsified, what I will do is pose two questions. First, explain a theory of tectonic plates and the shifting of the crust from the perspective of a non globular planet. Second, how would a satellite remain fixed in a position relative to a flat earth?

Just a third question for the hell of it, given the number of satellites in earths orbit, and the multiple countries and private agencies that have launched these satellites, how likely is it that a flat earth would remain controversial? Additionally, what benefit would come to those who held that knowledge?

Troll level over 9000. Or is it stupidity over 9000?

It's called geostationary orbit... lmao

How about this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs

So post the raw images.

Juno

Wrong. Just because something is tagged as "raw image" doesn't mean its raw data.

Raw data is here

No reason to pretend to know what you are talking about if you don't know. Unless your intent is to deceive...

You can absolutely get all the raw data from this mission that you want!

Except the images used internal internally .

Find the rest of this this image .

No pictures of the milky way from space?

Ask and ye shall receive. I tried to find something as close to the time lapse you just posted, except taken from orbit.

these are fake. I know because I have experience making 3d images and editing photos with photoshop.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-looks-shopped

These fake ISS videos are just a regular video from the cockpit of plane flying and then they added a bunch of effects

At what altitude would you say this is done at? How is the CGI done in real time during the live streams from the station?

The image was taken in visible light with the Cassini spacecraft narrow-angle camera on March 29, 2009.

Looking into the Hayabusa now. It's weird we are spending so much time tracking down various projects and photos that don't really meet the expectation or specifics of the desired image - when the Jewel Box photo matches it perfectly.

You claim the stars and the constellations are in the same relative position to each other correct? Prove it. It's an easily falsifiable claim.

Show a picture from Mars [or anywhere as far or further] with 2 or more constellations in it and the stars in the position they should be.